Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's the question: what makes it wrong?
It seems like you think the county clerk was wrong for different reasons that the college kids you are so bitter about. Why is that? Why is it not OK to complain about low pay in general and then turn down a particular job over some particular issue. Out of bounds? Who sets those bounds?
If a person has very vocally made economic grievance a central focal point of their position, then turning down jobs of extraneous ideological matters means that were merely leveraging that economic grievance as a talking point, and it wasn't actually what they were concerned about.
There's similarities and differences.
I don't see any "foisting" being done there at all.
But the government employee is obliged to pick up everybody's trash. If he can't do that because of his opinion of rainbow flags and the people who fly them, he should quit the job. His opinion of the pay is a separate issue and he can quit his job over the rainbow flags even if he complains that the pay was too low and even if he has to go to work for less pay somewhere else. But you don't think college graduates should do such a thing? Why not?
Perhaps if cardiology treatments and outcomes were tested on people other than White men, the diagnoses, treatments and outcomes would have been better for those other types of people with heart disease. But now we don't have to worry about disparate outcomes as that sort of data will no longer be tracked or funded - and hopefully the medical databases have been properly purged. I have seen this approach described as "soft eugenics".
Per the stat I posted before, 80% of that generation wanting the corporate world to take a stand in their political favor (via public statements and contributions), and 40% refusing to work there if they don't, is foisting.
Because its financial irresponsibility happening in the name of an unreasonable standard.
And you reserve to yourself the right to determine what is a reasonable standard. OK.
Not possible, since your half denies the existence of any other moral viewpoint but your own.
No, and despite your valient attempt at number juggling it really isn't happening all that much.
According to a survey by Indeed and Harris Poll, approximately 40% of Gen Z and millennial workers (ages 18–34) indicated they would leave a job due to political differences in the workplace. In contrast, this sentiment was only shared by 18% of workers across all age groups, highlighting a significant generational divide in attitudes toward political alignment at work.
I'm not in a "half" per say...
There was no juggling of numbers, there were stats...are the stats what you're referring to?
Good for you. Good for all of you. That means you've got the votes and can force them to take a job you approve of. You can even call out the National Guard like the old days. But I don't think, at least with as much of the Constitution as we have left, you can stop them from complaining about it.
It was the implication that the entire group was sitting at home in a sulk refusing to take good jobs.
Ah yes, having to (gasp) work in a place where not all of upper management voted the same way as you...yeah, that's exactly like Kent State 2.0.
No, the implication was that a significant portion of them would be willing to do that (based on their own words in survey/polling responses)
Some of them are, without doubt. Some of them will find jobs which meet their standards (there are quite a few) some will settle for much less than you think they want, some will even influence the culture of their workplace, some will start their own businesses or do gig work, and I suppose a few will stay at home and sulk, as a large slice of the blue collar class seems to want to do. I don't see the threat here, I don't see anything to be bitter about. I don't see how there is anything being "foisted." Unemployed recent college graduates really don't have all that much power in the labor market.
Nope. Employment is a free bargain between the employee and the employer. Both parties are free to make, or refuse to make, any concessions they like.
Detrimental to the individual's employment prospects, certainly.
Yes, that's all true. Don't forget, I'm a workforce development trainer and I see that kind of thing going on all the time. It's a real problem, but because I am dealing with it myself I know from experience that your proposed causes and solutions amount to nothing but channeling the prurient fantasies of right-wing religious MAGA extremists.
If the changes in focus within the academia system (drifting away from values-neutral environment, toward a more advocacy/activist leaning environment) isn't the cause, then I'd be curious as to what other massive changes line up with that overall shift.
vaguely familiar with him... (specifically, the "cage" metaphor) although it's been a few years.
There's no such thing as a "values-neutral environment."
LOL! Except for the main point--the role the Protestant church played in establishing that structure and why they did it the way they did.
And many of them are quite recent, arbitrary, and self serving. In any case they are subject to change, as the nature of what constitutes "work" in our society changes.
Do you see the authority of an employer as "parental?"
While Millennials and Gen Z have had similar access to social media, the difference is in its pervasiveness. I'm a middle Millennial (born in '89). Social media didn't even really exist until I was in high school (Myspace launched in 2003, just before my freshman year, and Facebook was opened up to non-.edu emails a couple years later), and you still had to sit at a computer to use it until I got to college (first iPhone was released in 2007). It took a few more years for smartphones to really take off (I'd put it around 2010-2012 for when they really became ubiquitous). While a lot of millennials have embraced smartphones and social media wholeheartedly, pretty much all of us went through at least some portion of our childhoods without those things. The algorithms also weren't nearly as aggressive or predatory at first - Facebook started really going downhill sometime around 2014/2015. Gen Z on the other hand, which is generally accepted to start around 1997/1998, has been immersed in social media for pretty much their entire lives. Politics has been increasingly pushed through social media since Trump's first campaign as well, so kids are becoming politically aware much earlier than they used to. I can vaguely remember my school holding a mock election in 2000, when I was in middle school, but aside from knowing that Bush was a Republican and Gore was a Democrat, none of us really understood what was going on. Today, I can guarantee you that a group of 11-year-olds would have a much better grasp of politics (or, at least, stronger opinions on the subject) than I or any of my peers did at that age.
Maybe not perfectly neutral, but more neutral than "instructors heading out with the students to protest the school's refusal to divest in every company that does business in Israel"
Could that just be a regional lens though?
There are some resemblances.
Who said that was a negative aspect? In any case it has ever been the function of organized religion in society to help maintain an orderly and productive workforce. Calvin didn't invent the idea, he just changed the rules a little.
They had Confucious--much the same thing.
Of course. But capitalism can be warped and used for that purpose. It should not go unnoticed that the only two people on the political scene today who are unabashed supporters of free market capitalism are Bernie and AOC.
It is clear where the governing authority of a parent comes from. I'm not so sure about a business owner.
