cgoddard

For most people quitting your job is an extremely risky proposition. Even if you do have a financial safety net, there are no guarantees other employers will be jumping at the opportunity to give you a job.

There are humanist churches too that you can get involved with ... if you don't want to deal with the crazy dogma that is.

At the very least its heavily reliant on reinforcing cultural stereotypes that likely have no bearing on actual gender differences.

They looked very much alike because most of them were socialist dictatorships, or socialist oligarchies. Their economic system didn't decide the shape of government.

That's not so much an issue with grain prices. Rice and bread and such are the most basic of staple foods, and pricing people out of that market results in hunger and starvation.

That is where government is supposed to step in and provide at least a small incentive, or buy the supply for a more modest sum before distributing it. Protecting the life and health of citizens is pretty much the most fundamental role government is supposed to serve. If it is failing in that duty, it should be toppled.

Yeah i don't see what the story was here either. It sort of disgusts me to think anyone would read this and be enlightened or surprised. If you've never had to worry about being out on the streets yourself you've led a very privileged life.

Getting employed and staying employed when you're homeless is a lot more difficult. Psychiatric and substance abuse problems don't help either; even if you're a homeless person and lucky enough not to be struggling with one of those, jobs available are often patronizing and demeaning (shit jobs).

Poverty is structural. Why are people poor? Largely because they are working jobs that pay shit wages, or live in areas they are too poor to escape, where there are not quality jobs matching the skillset taught to them by society.

This article is elitist bullshit coming from someone who has lived their life completely alien to poverty, who struggles to understand it.

When every type of worker makes enough money to afford to live in a school district with resources and quality educators, have health care, buy groceries, and care for their kids, we'll be in a lot better condition as a society.

I'm curious. If you speak in an anechoic chamber like this, what does it sound (or not) like?

Theres a thing called professionalism. It is no more appropriate to invite the mocking of women in the workplace at a conference than it would be to mock multiculturalism, and support that only privileged white males deserve good jobs. It is not appropriate, and reflects very badly on the character and judgment of the execs at Dell. I wouldn't be surprised if this severely impacts their ability to recruit competent employees; no self-respecting man or woman should want to be employed by bigots.

There's nothing wrong with giving non-apologies in some circumstances. All it does is indicate in a diplomatic way that you weren't really sorry for what you did. If there was actually a really good reason for you to be sorry (ie. inviting an outspoken sexist radical to moderate at your event), that's a good reason for others to be pissed at your unapologetic response though!

Ummm ... since when are leather boots considered business attire? I'd also call that dressing down, though in a more rugged style.