@shikitohno
@lemm.eeYes, clearly everyone is in a position to just walk off their job at any point in time, with no consequences for being unemployed.
I don't know why you're trying to say that the people who work these jobs, and largely live paycheck to paycheck, have the same sort of freedom as people who are financially stable. I was making my state's minimum wage at the time, which was entirely insufficient to pay for any decent standard of living. My co-workers who were undocumented were paid even less, had no recourse if they were fired for complaining about conditions or working "too slow" according the bosses, did not qualify for unemployment insurance and had a significantly harder time finding new work than I would. Just like the majority of people out working on farms in the US today. But yeah, let's pretend it's as simple as walking off the job if it's uncomfortable for everyone.
Your comments make it apparent that you've never worked these sorts of jobs or been in these sorts of conditions. What, you're going to just walk off the job because it sucks and become homeless when the weather and working conditions suck? Because that's the sort of choice that faces millions of people in the US today. It doesn't even need to be in agriculture, you can find similar conditions in so many non-unionized positions doing things like landscaping, manufacturing jobs, kitchen work, etc. Florida literally just passed a bill that removed employer responsibility for providing rest and water breaks based on heat stress during work being performed earlier this year.
But sure, everyone has several months' expenses in their bank accounts and work in a field where they can get another job from one day to the next...
How on earth is this enlightened conservatism to point out that these are not fatal temps for an otherwise healthy individual? I guess the whole population of the third world that lives in the tropics and doesn't have air conditioning just have superior genes according to you? Fucking hell, literally millions of people around the world live in conditions where they see temperatures as high, or even worse, and you want to pretend like it's saying "Well this guy should have just been stronger and worked harder," to point out that these conditions are generally not fatal for a person without other issues.
No, they are not good conditions, and the state has an obligation to provide decent conditions to all those who are incarcerated, but it's asinine to act as though healthy individuals routinely drop dead from spending several hours at 96°F or higher in high humidity environments in absence of some aggravating condition.
Aside from this, at least in my state, if you opt to cash out your vacation days without taking them, they get taxed at a higher rate. I used to tell my teams, "If you take your vacation days instead cashing them out, you get more money after taxes and you don't have to be here, so please just take your vacation time."
A person working in hot conditioms has the ability to back out and find AC and shade if they are starting to feel heat sick.
Welcome to working in agriculture, where you don't get to do this, unless you can afford losing your job. Keep on telling me how it is in a job you've obviously never worked, though.
Lol, tell me you haven't worked in agriculture without saying it. These are not wet fields, it was drip lines strung over pots with a black plastic tarp laid out underneath, so you get to enjoy the heat being reflected back up to you. Yet another liberal on the internet that wants to speak on behalf of people whose experiences they have no frame of reference for.
How? Yes, it is absolutely abusive behavior, but these are hardly the worst conditions people work in. It's literally been hotter and with higher humidity in New York for a couple of weeks, let alone the sort of conditions that many work in in tropical countries, or even a significant portion of the South, a great number of which are not known for extraordinary labor rights. It's entirely possible to point out that something should not be permitted, while also recognizing it generally wouldn't be fatal to an otherwise healthy adult.
This does not attribute any blame to the individual, nor does it reduce the culpability of the officers that subjected them to these conditions, fwiw. Just because something should not generally be fatal does not in any way mean it's okay to subject someone to those conditions.
My experience has been that my coworkers across several jobs that have kids tend to be both less educated and more religious. Regardless of income, my less ignorant coworkers tend not to have kids.
I mean, I've worked in agriculture pulling weeds in those temps and setting up irrigation lines. It was literally 30° F hotter in my job where I stand in front of the kitchen door a couple weeks ago. It's a far cry from comfortable, especially if you don't have access to water, but I can't imagine dying from it, absent some other health condition that was aggravated by it.
Also, just to be clear, I absolutely think it's abusive to leave an inmate in such conditions without access to water and shade, I'd just be surprised to hear it was fatal in an otherwise healthy young person.
They mostly seem to think something like "I'm not intolerant, I'm just stating uncomfortable facts that the liberals/socialists/etc are afraid to acknowledge!" I think @AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de is right in that certain topics being off-limits for acceptable discussion in liberal circles just serves to drive them towards the right. This, combined with right-wing dominance of media in the US and poor communications operations from the Democrats just serves to legitimize and invigorate the far-right here.
Just look at something like the discussion on crime and quality of life. Democratic leaders will point to statistics and uncritically say, "Crime is down, I don't know what you're talking about, things are fine." Statistics require context to interpret successfully, and they also obey the rule of garbage in, garbage out. It would not invalidate the statistics at all if, for example, overall crime were down, but more crimes were being perpetrated out in the open where people could see them than occurred previously. They also only capture the crimes that are successfully reported. Sexual assault is pretty famously under-reported, owing to a variety of factors. Having lived in the hood for a long time, I've also experienced it first hand that cops just flat out refuse to take a report sometimes.
Whatever the case may be, if the topic of crime and safety comes up these days and you post something like, "I get the stats say its down generally, but my neighborhood/commute/city has deteriorated significantly over the last few years and I no longer feel as safe as I used to," you'll get a bunch of replies mocking you with a few canned responses like "The plural of anecdote isn't data," or calling you a Republican plant or something, and not one that actually tries to engage with it. You should be able to look at the Republican platform and realize this isn't something that should cause one to overlook all the terrible things the GOP advocates, but many people will do just that when they feel that the Democrats have been ignoring them and their concerns for long enough.
If enough of your electoral base are voicing concerns that run contrary to your data, you really need to look into why that is and how to address it, or you run the risk of the opposition siphoning voters away when they acknowledge those concerns and validate them, even if you know for a fact they aren't actually going to address them.
If capitalism is decaying, how will it continue to work as intended for capitalists?
I don't think it necessarily will in their eyes, but as I see it, they view it in two ways that aren't mutually exclusive. Firstly, as capitalism decays, it could give rise to a system that allows them to exploit others even more mercilessly than they already do, and they're eager to reap the benefit of this development. Secondly, they think that their riches will allow them to escape the negative impacts of capitalism, regardless of what happens. Look at the billionaires buying up islands or building remote doomsday bunkers to escape to in the event things really go south. They fully expect that in the worst case scenario of extensive warfare, environmental crises and societal collapse, they'll be able to retreat into their castles, pull up the draw bridge over the moats, and live out the rest of their days in comfort while the rest of us suffer and perish.