Twin Towers wholesale outlet: our prices are coming down fast!

Pearl harbor casual clothing.

Jim crows bar and grill.

Credit where credit is due. 🇨🇦

Once their immigration status is tied to their employer they have no ability to shop around for better pay.

So why would they enter the program? They currently have demonstrated that they have no problem not having an immigration status, so why would they switch to having something that doesn’t benefit them, that they don’t want, and that costs them money?

Their goal is to make the legal path cheaper to appeal to farmers, but farmers aren’t the ones driving the price. As you said: market rate is higher than this guarantees people. If there’s a growing shortage of labor you can expect labor wages to rise. Why would you agree to work for less if you can just go to a different farm and make more?

I understand your point and the situation perfectly well.

migrant labor would get more and more expensive, as more and more people are deported.

I believe this is why you’re wrong, and farmers aren’t hoping it goes faster, but rather voted again their own interests like so many have, and just didn’t think they would specifically target their livelihoods.

A racist administration deporting people aggressively, lowering the incentives to come here legally, and not caring about the consequences, while farmers scramble to control damage they didn’t think was actually going to happen is a way simpler story. Also fits nicely with “America first” burning the ability of those farmers to sell to a global market, canceling programs that gave them money, and canceling food aid orders that mostly existed as back handed subsidies.

I feel like what you’re missing is that this is lowering the floor for what you can pay visa holders, but saying that will make them preferable to people where there is no floor doesn’t follow.

That doesn’t make sense. Adding paperwork isn’t going to lower labor costs.
Undocumented workers are already the least paid, least protected category of worker.
They’d be switching from workers with no minimum wage to ones that have a minimum wage, need to be properly tracked by the IRS and all that.

There’s actually a duo feature that does that.
Normally apps can’t cross authenticate like that because they don’t have the ability to talk to each other in a standard way that’s also verifiable and secure. Teams could have a way to share your auth to something else, but it’s much more difficult for it to know that the thing asking for access actually is something that’s supposed to be able to do so.
OneDrive is built in to Windows, so it’s able to use the authentication you use to log into the computer to talk to the Microsoft servers. (Essentially, there’s like a million steps and layers of indirection).

It’s one anonymous account saying something, and another making claims out of nowhere without context or proof. Hardly “probably”.

If we’re doing a detailed breakdown of their statement, that statement says that it doesn’t say anything good, not that it says anything bad.
I assumed they were a non-native English speaker who bungled “not good is opposite good, or bad” and instead had “not good is absence of good, or neutral”.

I read it as: the medical system being worse than house says more about the system than it does about house.

They definitely do, but for different reasons.
Hospitals increase prices they send to insurance so that the reduced rate the insurance pays covers their cost+profit. The insurance company wants to spend as little money as possible from their risk pool, and they want to advertise their “massive negotiation powers” to their big customers who have enough members to self fund (the insurance company just manages the money and billing, so zero risk on their part).
GE and the hospital have a much more traditional business to business relationship. GE is actually providing them with a very delicate piece of machinery that is enormous, filled with liquid helium, that produces a preposterous magnetic field and is safe enough to stick a squishy person into.
Their extra markup comes from the certifications that tell you that you can trust that it’s safe for those squishy people. It’s an intangible value add, sometimes legally mandated (FDA approval), sometimes an assurance of quality (all those ISO certifications attesting to quantifiable defect rates).
They’re not charging you more so when you pay less they still make a profit. They’re charging more because there’s only a handful of companies that can actually sell the damn things, and they all also have the same intangible costs.

Medical equipment is expensive because the price jump between “works” and “you can trust it with someone’s life” is a very expensive one. The paper documenting it even more so.

Some tests are legitimately expensive, some are “priced for insurance”, and some are a complicated middle ground where you could reasonably argue either way. Like, an MRI isn’t a cheap machine, nor is it devoid of ongoing costs, and the facility requirements to operate one are also extensive. The actual cost to run a single MRI scan though is materially cheap, ignoring labor costs. About the cost in electricity to power a house for a day. Less than $10 dollars.
On the one hand, taking those upfront, ongoing maintenance, and facilities costs and spreading them out over the cost of each scan seems reasonable. Without that money they can’t actually buy and run the machine. It can add up to $500-$10,000 per scan.
On the other hand, if you don’t get the test and the machine is just idle during the time, their costs only go down $10. You could reasonably argue that they should take any offer more than $10 if they have more idle capacity available than is needed for emergency usage.

Some genetic and nuclear testing just intrinsically involves expensive materials. They’re not done often and the materials are difficult to get together safely. Given the nature of the show, those are going to be represented more often. It’s not nearly as fun to watch the rogue doctor fail to charge $75 for an automated metabolic panel as it is to watch him jam a hamster gall bladder full of neptunium up someone’s urethra while spinning them like a rotisserie in an fmri.

Only note: I think he’s so borderline criminal in his behavior that he never actually documents the insane expensive tests for billing. He just does them without scheduling or booking the machine or equipment. Note how he often has doctors operating the MRI, and not a radiology technician or someone trained to actually take the pictures on the specific machine.

Management isn’t your friend, but managers are still people. The job is not the person. A good, nice, friendly person can have a job where their work interests aren’t necessarily aligned with yours and still try to do what they can to see that your interests are met.

If they fire me, no manager is going to ask me how I’m holding up or what my plans for the future are

That’s just not true. It’s not universally untrue, but it’s just wrong to default to such an antagonistic view from the outset.

All that to say: it sounds like you’re mainly having difficulty reconciling your thoughts on how you behave towards people with how you behave towards management. If you replace job related words with words like “people” or “person” then the question gets a lot easier.

I had an argument with this person everyone likes and after thinking about it, it was mostly my fault we raised our voices. She raised her voice first but because I wasn’t listening to her because she triggered me.

It’s pretty obvious to me that you apologize. Then ask if they’d be open to a conversation about what you feel could have gone better.
“Hey, do you have a minute? Sorry about how I acted when we were talking the other day. I thought about it and realized that I hadn’t been listening, which wasn’t right of me and made things worse. Would you be open to discussing it now that we have a little distance from it? I’d like to explain myself a bit and share some related concerns that I had, if nows a good time.”

They’re a person. If you feel your wronged them, apologize. If you feel like you want to explain things and offer feedback, just make it clear this isn’t a prerequisite for the apology or anything.

Exactly. If you’re apologizing, apologize. There’s nothing wrong with also asking to have a conversation about what caused the conflict.

“I’m sorry” and "can we talk about what happened?” are both valid, but ultimately aren’t dependent on each other.

I’ve got an alarming quantity. The saving grace is I don’t think I’m strong, say any of the weird shit, post the memes or have delusions about my fighting proficiency. And I’m not bald.

I used to be rather fit and I wrestled in high school. I’m fairly confident I could break free of someone roughly less skilled than me and maybe a hair stronger and flee. I’ve never been in a fight, I’ve been punched while boxing but was too disoriented to get a good hit back (first and only time boxing), and I’ve punched a friend in the face as the culmination to a funny conversation about how he’s never been punched in the face.

Flannel is really comfy, and I want to be the sort of person who goes on more hikes than I have time to.
I have no self delusions in the physical realm.

that’s because of racism. Racial inequality in policing isn’t caused by that clause though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_exception_clause

There are states that never allowed slavery that have the exception.

Well, it’s not explicitly there for racists. Punishing crime with labor has a long history, both in and outside the US.

The most common kind in the US is community service as used for a minor punishment in place of incarceration.
It’s by no means good, but the worst examples tend to disproportionately color the perceived level of injustice to it.

People who play sports games don’t even blink when you tell them you like strategy games in my experience.
Turns out people who enjoy pretending to manage a sports team don’t think it’s odd that someone might enjoy pretending to manage an army or empire. Or that people in general don’t usually think most hobbies are unusual, if you talk about them like a sane person.

They’re also just general 4chan Internet weirdo. I take it you’re thinking there’s a particular type of racism libertarians are more prone to? Probably “we don’t need racial discrimination protections, the market will punish it if people care”?

I mean, you’re entirely correct, but there’s also racial politics as in “race relations”. Like “why are we regressing on race based civil liberty protections and seeing an upswing in racial prejudice”.

Racial groups don’t have homogeneous political opinions, but they are often the subject of political opinions.

All that to say: there are many different ways to express a disgustingly inappropriate blend of racial and political opinions in a workplace, and we shouldn’t assume they picked any particular inappropriate way.