|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 02 2015 09:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2015 08:54 Livelovedie wrote:
Transparently allowing employees to see other employees compensation within the same company would go a long way to reducing inequality. For the first time, employees would be able to rationally argue what they should be paid by having the same information the employer has. The social stigma exists because people realize they are paid too much, subconsciously, or not paid enough. It's not really as simple as that. If you knew your coworker got a substantial raise, more often than not the reaction would be "why didn't I get one as well", and not "that worker must've earned it". It breeds jealousy and hostility in the work place, and adversely hurts the employees that are actually putting in more effort or doing better work (which is often one of the legitimate complaints about current unions). With that said, that's assuming that people who are paid more have legitimately earned it, as opposed to other factors like who is better at schmoozing, or negotiated better at contract signing, or knows people in management, etc. Or when companies are actually penny-pinching and try to push the less assertive employees to be paid at the bottom line.
There would be a great deal of pressure on the employer to justify pay differences in the face of employee objections. Can't say I see that as a problem, more like a benefit.
|
On June 02 2015 09:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2015 08:54 Livelovedie wrote:
Transparently allowing employees to see other employees compensation within the same company would go a long way to reducing inequality. For the first time, employees would be able to rationally argue what they should be paid by having the same information the employer has. The social stigma exists because people realize they are paid too much, subconsciously, or not paid enough. It's not really as simple as that. If you knew your coworker got a substantial raise, more often than not the reaction would be "why didn't I get one as well", and not "that worker must've earned it". It breeds jealousy and hostility in the work place, and adversely hurts the employees that are actually putting in more effort or doing better work (which is often one of the legitimate complaints about current unions). With that said, that's assuming that people who are paid more have legitimately earned it, as opposed to other factors like who is better at schmoozing, or negotiated better at contract signing, or knows people in management, etc. Or when companies are actually penny-pinching and try to push the less assertive employees to be paid at the bottom line.
If they earned it, it shouldn't be hard for an employer to make that case to the employee who is disgruntled. If they didn't though, it would probably be pretty obvious. Whereas now they can say practically anything they want to justify it and one just has to take their word for it (even if it is in conflict with their personal/peers experience).
|
On June 02 2015 07:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2015 07:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 02 2015 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2015 06:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:imo guest on the left doesn't know how to talk to his audience. He sounds like he's speaking to other activists who know the language and already agree with his sentiment. But to someone that isn't already in the club he isn't persuasive and comes off as unnecessarily antagonistic. The opposite with the guest on the right. He seemed level headed and make Hannity look too rough. That's one difference between a politician and an activist. They were essentially saying the same thing, just one was saying it in the language that audience is more familiar with. As for Hannity... goodness. Could of talked about anything with those gentlemen but it was abundantly clear his intention was to get the guests into some sort of 'gotcha' with them saying everything is individual emotional racism (a common dismissal of the issues they wanted to discuss). Hannity intentionally wanted to make them look 'antagonistic' (hence the drilling on things like "Do you know the names of all of the victims?!?" "Is all the violence because racism?!?" "There are black cops" like wtf is that? I know the point he's trying to make but it was tactless to say the least.) The entire interview should of been focused on what the councilman said after he got Hannity to actually let him speak @0:50 The fact that Hannity went on to completely ignore it, in order to keep drilling his preconceived points, is exactly why people are so fed up with people like Hannity and their rhetoric that is disconnected from reality and betrays a clear disingenuous position. From what I saw Hannity and the activist are two sides of the same coin. Your criticisms of him aren't really wrong, but I think they apply equally to the activist as well. There's also a completely different level of expectations for "professionals" and non-professionals. If an activist is brought on to a show, you expect them to be outspoken and passionate, if a little lacking in details. You expect the host to create a solid discourse from people not used to being on air.
That's not really what I'm talking about. It's not a matter of outspokenness or passion. Hannity is speaking to his audience (older conservative types) exclusively, and the activist is speaking to his audience (other activists) exclusively. They're barely using the same language. Conservatives watching will hear Hannity asking relevant questions and the activist speaking a lot of nonsense. Liberals watching will have GH's reaction. Neither side 'gets' the other.
|
On June 02 2015 09:16 NovaTheFeared wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2015 09:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 02 2015 08:54 Livelovedie wrote:
Transparently allowing employees to see other employees compensation within the same company would go a long way to reducing inequality. For the first time, employees would be able to rationally argue what they should be paid by having the same information the employer has. The social stigma exists because people realize they are paid too much, subconsciously, or not paid enough. It's not really as simple as that. If you knew your coworker got a substantial raise, more often than not the reaction would be "why didn't I get one as well", and not "that worker must've earned it". It breeds jealousy and hostility in the work place, and adversely hurts the employees that are actually putting in more effort or doing better work (which is often one of the legitimate complaints about current unions). With that said, that's assuming that people who are paid more have legitimately earned it, as opposed to other factors like who is better at schmoozing, or negotiated better at contract signing, or knows people in management, etc. Or when companies are actually penny-pinching and try to push the less assertive employees to be paid at the bottom line. There would be a great deal of pressure on the employer to justify pay differences in the face of employee objections. Can't say I see that as a problem, more like a benefit.
A lot of people like to keep their personal finances private. It can also be demoralizing to be paid less, because you aren't the greatest, and now everyone knows it. There can be benefits to more transparency, but this is a pretty messy topic.
|
On June 02 2015 09:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2015 07:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 02 2015 07:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 02 2015 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2015 06:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 02 2015 01:50 GreenHorizons wrote:+ Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn5JXhxd9rU imo guest on the left doesn't know how to talk to his audience. He sounds like he's speaking to other activists who know the language and already agree with his sentiment. But to someone that isn't already in the club he isn't persuasive and comes off as unnecessarily antagonistic. The opposite with the guest on the right. He seemed level headed and make Hannity look too rough. That's one difference between a politician and an activist. They were essentially saying the same thing, just one was saying it in the language that audience is more familiar with. As for Hannity... goodness. Could of talked about anything with those gentlemen but it was abundantly clear his intention was to get the guests into some sort of 'gotcha' with them saying everything is individual emotional racism (a common dismissal of the issues they wanted to discuss). Hannity intentionally wanted to make them look 'antagonistic' (hence the drilling on things like "Do you know the names of all of the victims?!?" "Is all the violence because racism?!?" "There are black cops" like wtf is that? I know the point he's trying to make but it was tactless to say the least.) The entire interview should of been focused on what the councilman said after he got Hannity to actually let him speak @0:50 The fact that Hannity went on to completely ignore it, in order to keep drilling his preconceived points, is exactly why people are so fed up with people like Hannity and their rhetoric that is disconnected from reality and betrays a clear disingenuous position. From what I saw Hannity and the activist are two sides of the same coin. Your criticisms of him aren't really wrong, but I think they apply equally to the activist as well. There's also a completely different level of expectations for "professionals" and non-professionals. If an activist is brought on to a show, you expect them to be outspoken and passionate, if a little lacking in details. You expect the host to create a solid discourse from people not used to being on air. That's not really what I'm talking about. It's not a matter of outspokenness or passion. Hannity is speaking to his audience (older conservative types) exclusively, and the activist is speaking to his audience (other activists) exclusively. They're barely using the same language. Conservatives watching will hear Hannity asking relevant questions and the activist speaking a lot of nonsense. Liberals watching will have GH's reaction. Neither side 'gets' the other.
What I was talking about is the conservatives that think Hannity was acting even remotely appropriately are missing that he completely ignored someone saying exactly what he and those conservatives say they don't hear enough of. Which supports my much earlier assertion that it's not because those things aren't being said by those people, but because even when it's literally right in their face they ignore it.
You can see the same thing in Hannity's and (conservatives like him) interpretation of Michelle's speech at Tuskegee. It doesn't stop there, but these recent examples are simply undeniable.
On June 02 2015 09:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2015 09:16 NovaTheFeared wrote:On June 02 2015 09:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 02 2015 08:54 Livelovedie wrote:
Transparently allowing employees to see other employees compensation within the same company would go a long way to reducing inequality. For the first time, employees would be able to rationally argue what they should be paid by having the same information the employer has. The social stigma exists because people realize they are paid too much, subconsciously, or not paid enough. It's not really as simple as that. If you knew your coworker got a substantial raise, more often than not the reaction would be "why didn't I get one as well", and not "that worker must've earned it". It breeds jealousy and hostility in the work place, and adversely hurts the employees that are actually putting in more effort or doing better work (which is often one of the legitimate complaints about current unions). With that said, that's assuming that people who are paid more have legitimately earned it, as opposed to other factors like who is better at schmoozing, or negotiated better at contract signing, or knows people in management, etc. Or when companies are actually penny-pinching and try to push the less assertive employees to be paid at the bottom line. There would be a great deal of pressure on the employer to justify pay differences in the face of employee objections. Can't say I see that as a problem, more like a benefit. A lot of people like to keep their personal finances private. It can also be demoralizing to be paid less, because you aren't the greatest, and now everyone knows it. There can be benefits to more transparency, but this is a pretty messy topic.
This is mostly about deception. So people can appear less well off than they are (pretty rare) or appear more wealthy than they are (this is what America runs on).
It's never made sense to me how ones financial success is tied to their success as a person, yet we are never supposed to talk about our finances just subtly brag through possessions and prestige.
That said, I think some experimentation around putting individually identifiable information vs generic information could be pragmatic.
As for the demoralizing issue, it's pretty much the same thing about public grades and people seem to be on opposite sides of the same position depending on the group that one is talking about.
|
The auto industry is cyclical so you're going to have booms and busts no matter what lessons you learn.
|
Surely there's some places in the world where such information is provided where we could observe how it's working out in practice?
If not then I'd propose using that "states as the laboratory of democracy" thing to have a few states try it out.
This reminds me of the issue with how some online games no longer show your overall ranking, or use a regular elo value, as per discussion in qxc's recent blog post.
However there should be someone at least who gets the full information to look for problems; even if it's better for the workplace to not have people fighting over it.
|
On June 02 2015 09:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2015 09:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 02 2015 07:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 02 2015 07:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 02 2015 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2015 06:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 02 2015 01:50 GreenHorizons wrote:+ Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn5JXhxd9rU imo guest on the left doesn't know how to talk to his audience. He sounds like he's speaking to other activists who know the language and already agree with his sentiment. But to someone that isn't already in the club he isn't persuasive and comes off as unnecessarily antagonistic. The opposite with the guest on the right. He seemed level headed and make Hannity look too rough. That's one difference between a politician and an activist. They were essentially saying the same thing, just one was saying it in the language that audience is more familiar with. As for Hannity... goodness. Could of talked about anything with those gentlemen but it was abundantly clear his intention was to get the guests into some sort of 'gotcha' with them saying everything is individual emotional racism (a common dismissal of the issues they wanted to discuss). Hannity intentionally wanted to make them look 'antagonistic' (hence the drilling on things like "Do you know the names of all of the victims?!?" "Is all the violence because racism?!?" "There are black cops" like wtf is that? I know the point he's trying to make but it was tactless to say the least.) The entire interview should of been focused on what the councilman said after he got Hannity to actually let him speak @0:50 The fact that Hannity went on to completely ignore it, in order to keep drilling his preconceived points, is exactly why people are so fed up with people like Hannity and their rhetoric that is disconnected from reality and betrays a clear disingenuous position. From what I saw Hannity and the activist are two sides of the same coin. Your criticisms of him aren't really wrong, but I think they apply equally to the activist as well. There's also a completely different level of expectations for "professionals" and non-professionals. If an activist is brought on to a show, you expect them to be outspoken and passionate, if a little lacking in details. You expect the host to create a solid discourse from people not used to being on air. That's not really what I'm talking about. It's not a matter of outspokenness or passion. Hannity is speaking to his audience (older conservative types) exclusively, and the activist is speaking to his audience (other activists) exclusively. They're barely using the same language. Conservatives watching will hear Hannity asking relevant questions and the activist speaking a lot of nonsense. Liberals watching will have GH's reaction. Neither side 'gets' the other. What I was talking about is the conservatives that think Hannity was acting even remotely appropriately are missing that he completely ignored someone saying exactly what he and those conservatives say they don't hear enough of. Which supports my much earlier assertion that it's not because those things aren't being said by those people, but because even when it's literally right in their face they ignore it. You can see the same thing in Hannity's and (conservatives like him) interpretation of Michelle's speech at Tuskegee. It doesn't stop there, but these recent examples are simply undeniable.
There were two different guests talking about multiple things so I'm not sure what you are referring to here. The activist was very much not saying things that conservatives say they want to hear. If you mean the other guest, I said before that Hannity came off poorly regarding him.
|
On June 02 2015 09:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2015 09:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2015 09:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 02 2015 07:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 02 2015 07:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 02 2015 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2015 06:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 02 2015 01:50 GreenHorizons wrote:+ Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn5JXhxd9rU imo guest on the left doesn't know how to talk to his audience. He sounds like he's speaking to other activists who know the language and already agree with his sentiment. But to someone that isn't already in the club he isn't persuasive and comes off as unnecessarily antagonistic. The opposite with the guest on the right. He seemed level headed and make Hannity look too rough. That's one difference between a politician and an activist. They were essentially saying the same thing, just one was saying it in the language that audience is more familiar with. As for Hannity... goodness. Could of talked about anything with those gentlemen but it was abundantly clear his intention was to get the guests into some sort of 'gotcha' with them saying everything is individual emotional racism (a common dismissal of the issues they wanted to discuss). Hannity intentionally wanted to make them look 'antagonistic' (hence the drilling on things like "Do you know the names of all of the victims?!?" "Is all the violence because racism?!?" "There are black cops" like wtf is that? I know the point he's trying to make but it was tactless to say the least.) The entire interview should of been focused on what the councilman said after he got Hannity to actually let him speak @0:50 The fact that Hannity went on to completely ignore it, in order to keep drilling his preconceived points, is exactly why people are so fed up with people like Hannity and their rhetoric that is disconnected from reality and betrays a clear disingenuous position. From what I saw Hannity and the activist are two sides of the same coin. Your criticisms of him aren't really wrong, but I think they apply equally to the activist as well. There's also a completely different level of expectations for "professionals" and non-professionals. If an activist is brought on to a show, you expect them to be outspoken and passionate, if a little lacking in details. You expect the host to create a solid discourse from people not used to being on air. That's not really what I'm talking about. It's not a matter of outspokenness or passion. Hannity is speaking to his audience (older conservative types) exclusively, and the activist is speaking to his audience (other activists) exclusively. They're barely using the same language. Conservatives watching will hear Hannity asking relevant questions and the activist speaking a lot of nonsense. Liberals watching will have GH's reaction. Neither side 'gets' the other. What I was talking about is the conservatives that think Hannity was acting even remotely appropriately are missing that he completely ignored someone saying exactly what he and those conservatives say they don't hear enough of. Which supports my much earlier assertion that it's not because those things aren't being said by those people, but because even when it's literally right in their face they ignore it. You can see the same thing in Hannity's and (conservatives like him) interpretation of Michelle's speech at Tuskegee. It doesn't stop there, but these recent examples are simply undeniable. There were two different guests talking about multiple things so I'm not sure what you are referring to here. The activist was very much not saying things that conservatives say they want to hear. If you mean the other guest, I said before that Hannity came off poorly regarding him.
I'm talking about what the councilman said ~@0:50.
I'm not talking about you specifically, I appreciate you acknowledging that Hannity 'came off poorly' even if I would use a harsher description. I was specifically talking about the conservatives who don't think Hannity was being inappropriate or disrespectful or 'coming off poorly'
|
On June 02 2015 09:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2015 09:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 02 2015 09:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2015 09:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 02 2015 07:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 02 2015 07:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 02 2015 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2015 06:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 02 2015 01:50 GreenHorizons wrote:+ Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn5JXhxd9rU imo guest on the left doesn't know how to talk to his audience. He sounds like he's speaking to other activists who know the language and already agree with his sentiment. But to someone that isn't already in the club he isn't persuasive and comes off as unnecessarily antagonistic. The opposite with the guest on the right. He seemed level headed and make Hannity look too rough. That's one difference between a politician and an activist. They were essentially saying the same thing, just one was saying it in the language that audience is more familiar with. As for Hannity... goodness. Could of talked about anything with those gentlemen but it was abundantly clear his intention was to get the guests into some sort of 'gotcha' with them saying everything is individual emotional racism (a common dismissal of the issues they wanted to discuss). Hannity intentionally wanted to make them look 'antagonistic' (hence the drilling on things like "Do you know the names of all of the victims?!?" "Is all the violence because racism?!?" "There are black cops" like wtf is that? I know the point he's trying to make but it was tactless to say the least.) The entire interview should of been focused on what the councilman said after he got Hannity to actually let him speak @0:50 The fact that Hannity went on to completely ignore it, in order to keep drilling his preconceived points, is exactly why people are so fed up with people like Hannity and their rhetoric that is disconnected from reality and betrays a clear disingenuous position. From what I saw Hannity and the activist are two sides of the same coin. Your criticisms of him aren't really wrong, but I think they apply equally to the activist as well. There's also a completely different level of expectations for "professionals" and non-professionals. If an activist is brought on to a show, you expect them to be outspoken and passionate, if a little lacking in details. You expect the host to create a solid discourse from people not used to being on air. That's not really what I'm talking about. It's not a matter of outspokenness or passion. Hannity is speaking to his audience (older conservative types) exclusively, and the activist is speaking to his audience (other activists) exclusively. They're barely using the same language. Conservatives watching will hear Hannity asking relevant questions and the activist speaking a lot of nonsense. Liberals watching will have GH's reaction. Neither side 'gets' the other. What I was talking about is the conservatives that think Hannity was acting even remotely appropriately are missing that he completely ignored someone saying exactly what he and those conservatives say they don't hear enough of. Which supports my much earlier assertion that it's not because those things aren't being said by those people, but because even when it's literally right in their face they ignore it. You can see the same thing in Hannity's and (conservatives like him) interpretation of Michelle's speech at Tuskegee. It doesn't stop there, but these recent examples are simply undeniable. There were two different guests talking about multiple things so I'm not sure what you are referring to here. The activist was very much not saying things that conservatives say they want to hear. If you mean the other guest, I said before that Hannity came off poorly regarding him. I'm talking about what the councilman said ~@0:50. I'm not talking about you specifically, I appreciate you acknowledging that Hannity 'came off poorly' even if I would use a harsher description. I was specifically talking about the conservatives who don't think Hannity was being inappropriate or disrespectful or 'coming off poorly'
I think a lot of conservatives would say he was being too harsh and that's why he moved on to the activist. I can picture one of the producers saying into Hannity's earpiece 'crap! that guy isn't stupid! move onto the other one!!" 
I also think a lot of conservatives would think that he's asking relevant questions. iirc there have been others on TV claiming to be really concerned and can't remember a single person they're supposedly really concerned about. I'm not sure if you are bothered by that sort of thing, but a lot of conservatives are and so the question would be relevant to them.
|
On June 02 2015 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2015 09:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2015 09:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 02 2015 09:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2015 09:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 02 2015 07:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 02 2015 07:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 02 2015 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2015 06:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 02 2015 01:50 GreenHorizons wrote:+ Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn5JXhxd9rU imo guest on the left doesn't know how to talk to his audience. He sounds like he's speaking to other activists who know the language and already agree with his sentiment. But to someone that isn't already in the club he isn't persuasive and comes off as unnecessarily antagonistic. The opposite with the guest on the right. He seemed level headed and make Hannity look too rough. That's one difference between a politician and an activist. They were essentially saying the same thing, just one was saying it in the language that audience is more familiar with. As for Hannity... goodness. Could of talked about anything with those gentlemen but it was abundantly clear his intention was to get the guests into some sort of 'gotcha' with them saying everything is individual emotional racism (a common dismissal of the issues they wanted to discuss). Hannity intentionally wanted to make them look 'antagonistic' (hence the drilling on things like "Do you know the names of all of the victims?!?" "Is all the violence because racism?!?" "There are black cops" like wtf is that? I know the point he's trying to make but it was tactless to say the least.) The entire interview should of been focused on what the councilman said after he got Hannity to actually let him speak @0:50 The fact that Hannity went on to completely ignore it, in order to keep drilling his preconceived points, is exactly why people are so fed up with people like Hannity and their rhetoric that is disconnected from reality and betrays a clear disingenuous position. From what I saw Hannity and the activist are two sides of the same coin. Your criticisms of him aren't really wrong, but I think they apply equally to the activist as well. There's also a completely different level of expectations for "professionals" and non-professionals. If an activist is brought on to a show, you expect them to be outspoken and passionate, if a little lacking in details. You expect the host to create a solid discourse from people not used to being on air. That's not really what I'm talking about. It's not a matter of outspokenness or passion. Hannity is speaking to his audience (older conservative types) exclusively, and the activist is speaking to his audience (other activists) exclusively. They're barely using the same language. Conservatives watching will hear Hannity asking relevant questions and the activist speaking a lot of nonsense. Liberals watching will have GH's reaction. Neither side 'gets' the other. What I was talking about is the conservatives that think Hannity was acting even remotely appropriately are missing that he completely ignored someone saying exactly what he and those conservatives say they don't hear enough of. Which supports my much earlier assertion that it's not because those things aren't being said by those people, but because even when it's literally right in their face they ignore it. You can see the same thing in Hannity's and (conservatives like him) interpretation of Michelle's speech at Tuskegee. It doesn't stop there, but these recent examples are simply undeniable. There were two different guests talking about multiple things so I'm not sure what you are referring to here. The activist was very much not saying things that conservatives say they want to hear. If you mean the other guest, I said before that Hannity came off poorly regarding him. I'm talking about what the councilman said ~@0:50. I'm not talking about you specifically, I appreciate you acknowledging that Hannity 'came off poorly' even if I would use a harsher description. I was specifically talking about the conservatives who don't think Hannity was being inappropriate or disrespectful or 'coming off poorly' I think a lot of conservatives would say he was being too harsh and that's why he moved on to the activist. I can picture one of the producers saying into Hannity's earpiece 'crap! that guy isn't stupid! move onto the other one!!" I also think a lot of conservatives would think that he's asking relevant questions. iirc there have been others on TV claiming to be really concerned and can't remember a single person they're supposedly really concerned about. I'm not sure if you are bothered by that sort of thing, but a lot of conservatives are and so the question would be relevant to them.
It was really only two questions over and over again. Which is kind of my point. It didn't matter what those people actually thought, all Hannity wanted to do was project his idea of their view on them, not listen to what they were actually saying or what they were trying to accomplish. Whether the questions were relevant is a stretch imo but not really the point. Even if the questions were relevant, it doesn't change how he and many conservatives ignore what they claim to want to hear, in favor of trying to push a narrative. The same was obvious in their coverage from Baltimore. It becomes less obvious in other places but once one sees it, it's easier to see it happening elsewhere.
I'm not saying this is exclusive to Fox News, just that people have been denying it when it has been obvious in many situations, this most recent one just finally being hard for even conservatives to ignore.
EDIT: I'm not so confident that conservatives would think Hannity was being 'too harsh', I also don't think that accurately describes just what he was doing. It makes it seem like it was an emotional reaction or something and not a methodical and intentional pattern(and this guy wasn't who he thought he was and wasn't taking the 'bait').
|
Discussing your salary with your coworkers is protected by the National Labor Relations Act. Of course, there is a great deal of difference in the burden on an employee individually asking coworkers what they make and simply having that information be publicly available...
|
Also there is a law against IRS disclosing your tax returns. And, in Illinois, they disclose teacher salaries and its not really that great for people. Its either witchunting or grandstanding whenever someone cites those numbers.
|
On June 02 2015 12:06 cLutZ wrote:
Also there is a law against IRS disclosing your tax returns. And, in Illinois, they disclose teacher salaries and its not really that great for people. Its either witchunting or grandstanding whenever someone cites those numbers.
This is only true because their pay is controlled by their contracts and the contracts are public information.
|
On June 02 2015 07:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2015 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2015 06:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 02 2015 01:50 GreenHorizons wrote:+ Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn5JXhxd9rU imo guest on the left doesn't know how to talk to his audience. He sounds like he's speaking to other activists who know the language and already agree with his sentiment. But to someone that isn't already in the club he isn't persuasive and comes off as unnecessarily antagonistic. The opposite with the guest on the right. He seemed level headed and make Hannity look too rough. That's one difference between a politician and an activist. They were essentially saying the same thing, just one was saying it in the language that audience is more familiar with. As for Hannity... goodness. Could of talked about anything with those gentlemen but it was abundantly clear his intention was to get the guests into some sort of 'gotcha' with them saying everything is individual emotional racism (a common dismissal of the issues they wanted to discuss). Hannity intentionally wanted to make them look 'antagonistic' (hence the drilling on things like "Do you know the names of all of the victims?!?" "Is all the violence because racism?!?" "There are black cops" like wtf is that? I know the point he's trying to make but it was tactless to say the least.) The entire interview should of been focused on what the councilman said after he got Hannity to actually let him speak @0:50 The fact that Hannity went on to completely ignore it, in order to keep drilling his preconceived points, is exactly why people are so fed up with people like Hannity and their rhetoric that is disconnected from reality and betrays a clear disingenuous position. From what I saw Hannity and the activist are two sides of the same coin. Your criticisms of him aren't really wrong, but I think they apply equally to the activist as well. I get the same vibe from Hannity. He's the right's (sometimes toned down) version of the race & class bigots from the left. I tire quickly of that style of conservative preaching to the choir, which is why I don't watch FoxNews. They should really hire GH considering his hate segments are the only exposure I get these days.
|
On June 02 2015 14:27 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2015 07:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 02 2015 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2015 06:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 02 2015 01:50 GreenHorizons wrote:+ Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn5JXhxd9rU imo guest on the left doesn't know how to talk to his audience. He sounds like he's speaking to other activists who know the language and already agree with his sentiment. But to someone that isn't already in the club he isn't persuasive and comes off as unnecessarily antagonistic. The opposite with the guest on the right. He seemed level headed and make Hannity look too rough. That's one difference between a politician and an activist. They were essentially saying the same thing, just one was saying it in the language that audience is more familiar with. As for Hannity... goodness. Could of talked about anything with those gentlemen but it was abundantly clear his intention was to get the guests into some sort of 'gotcha' with them saying everything is individual emotional racism (a common dismissal of the issues they wanted to discuss). Hannity intentionally wanted to make them look 'antagonistic' (hence the drilling on things like "Do you know the names of all of the victims?!?" "Is all the violence because racism?!?" "There are black cops" like wtf is that? I know the point he's trying to make but it was tactless to say the least.) The entire interview should of been focused on what the councilman said after he got Hannity to actually let him speak @0:50 The fact that Hannity went on to completely ignore it, in order to keep drilling his preconceived points, is exactly why people are so fed up with people like Hannity and their rhetoric that is disconnected from reality and betrays a clear disingenuous position. From what I saw Hannity and the activist are two sides of the same coin. Your criticisms of him aren't really wrong, but I think they apply equally to the activist as well. I get the same vibe from Hannity. He's the right's (sometimes toned down) version of the race & class bigots from the left. I tire quickly of that style of conservative preaching to the choir, which is why I don't watch FoxNews. They should really hire GH considering his hate segments are the only exposure I get these days.
That's something I hadn't heard before.
Curious conservatives gave complete control over who would be in the first RNC debate to Fox News if they aren't as popular with conservatives as it seems.
EDIT: To put a bow on it, I just watched Lindsey Graham reminiscing about shooting pool in a bar as a 12 year old, illegally gambling, with a corrupt police chief playing right along with everyone. My personal favorite line being "It was stupid, I don't know why I only took 10%, I should of took more" (in reference to when he would gamble with the pro players backing him).
I knew the guy was out of touch, but damn...
|
On June 02 2015 09:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2015 09:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 02 2015 08:54 Livelovedie wrote:
Transparently allowing employees to see other employees compensation within the same company would go a long way to reducing inequality. For the first time, employees would be able to rationally argue what they should be paid by having the same information the employer has. The social stigma exists because people realize they are paid too much, subconsciously, or not paid enough. It's not really as simple as that. If you knew your coworker got a substantial raise, more often than not the reaction would be "why didn't I get one as well", and not "that worker must've earned it". It breeds jealousy and hostility in the work place, and adversely hurts the employees that are actually putting in more effort or doing better work (which is often one of the legitimate complaints about current unions). With that said, that's assuming that people who are paid more have legitimately earned it, as opposed to other factors like who is better at schmoozing, or negotiated better at contract signing, or knows people in management, etc. Or when companies are actually penny-pinching and try to push the less assertive employees to be paid at the bottom line. If they earned it, it shouldn't be hard for an employer to make that case to the employee who is disgruntled. If they didn't though, it would probably be pretty obvious. Whereas now they can say practically anything they want to justify it and one just has to take their word for it (even if it is in conflict with their personal/peers experience).
While it's true that an employer should require good justification for pay differences, that alone does not solve interpersonal issues between coworkers of the same hierarchy (or even in different hierarchies). It's classic Dunning Kruger effect, where people will overestimate themselves and diminish the contributions of others.
And generally speaking, management doesn't have that much issue telling off problem employees and saying they deserve a lower pay than someone else. It's the person with the higher pay that'll have the issue with coworker animosity.
|
On June 02 2015 14:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2015 14:27 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2015 07:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 02 2015 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2015 06:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 02 2015 01:50 GreenHorizons wrote:+ Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn5JXhxd9rU imo guest on the left doesn't know how to talk to his audience. He sounds like he's speaking to other activists who know the language and already agree with his sentiment. But to someone that isn't already in the club he isn't persuasive and comes off as unnecessarily antagonistic. The opposite with the guest on the right. He seemed level headed and make Hannity look too rough. That's one difference between a politician and an activist. They were essentially saying the same thing, just one was saying it in the language that audience is more familiar with. As for Hannity... goodness. Could of talked about anything with those gentlemen but it was abundantly clear his intention was to get the guests into some sort of 'gotcha' with them saying everything is individual emotional racism (a common dismissal of the issues they wanted to discuss). Hannity intentionally wanted to make them look 'antagonistic' (hence the drilling on things like "Do you know the names of all of the victims?!?" "Is all the violence because racism?!?" "There are black cops" like wtf is that? I know the point he's trying to make but it was tactless to say the least.) The entire interview should of been focused on what the councilman said after he got Hannity to actually let him speak @0:50 The fact that Hannity went on to completely ignore it, in order to keep drilling his preconceived points, is exactly why people are so fed up with people like Hannity and their rhetoric that is disconnected from reality and betrays a clear disingenuous position. From what I saw Hannity and the activist are two sides of the same coin. Your criticisms of him aren't really wrong, but I think they apply equally to the activist as well. I get the same vibe from Hannity. He's the right's (sometimes toned down) version of the race & class bigots from the left. I tire quickly of that style of conservative preaching to the choir, which is why I don't watch FoxNews. They should really hire GH considering his hate segments are the only exposure I get these days. That's something I hadn't heard before. Curious conservatives gave complete control over who would be in the first RNC debate to Fox News if they aren't as popular with conservatives as it seems. EDIT: To put a bow on it, I just watched Lindsey Graham reminiscing about shooting pool in a bar as a 12 year old, illegally gambling, with a corrupt police chief playing right along with everyone. My personal favorite line being "It was stupid, I don't know why I only took 10%, I should of took more" (in reference to when he would gamble with the pro players backing him). I knew the guy was out of touch, but damn...
Fox's median viewer age is something like 62+. You're putting way too much into FNC especially for the under 45. As for the RNC and Fox, well it's pretty natural they're going to give the first debate to the only station that is not antagonistic towards the GOP. Fox Business is much better than FNC, but I doubt we'll be seeing Lisa Kennedy moderating a presidential debate anytime soon (or Judge Napolitano, etc.).
|
On June 02 2015 18:36 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2015 14:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2015 14:27 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2015 07:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 02 2015 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2015 06:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 02 2015 01:50 GreenHorizons wrote:+ Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn5JXhxd9rU imo guest on the left doesn't know how to talk to his audience. He sounds like he's speaking to other activists who know the language and already agree with his sentiment. But to someone that isn't already in the club he isn't persuasive and comes off as unnecessarily antagonistic. The opposite with the guest on the right. He seemed level headed and make Hannity look too rough. That's one difference between a politician and an activist. They were essentially saying the same thing, just one was saying it in the language that audience is more familiar with. As for Hannity... goodness. Could of talked about anything with those gentlemen but it was abundantly clear his intention was to get the guests into some sort of 'gotcha' with them saying everything is individual emotional racism (a common dismissal of the issues they wanted to discuss). Hannity intentionally wanted to make them look 'antagonistic' (hence the drilling on things like "Do you know the names of all of the victims?!?" "Is all the violence because racism?!?" "There are black cops" like wtf is that? I know the point he's trying to make but it was tactless to say the least.) The entire interview should of been focused on what the councilman said after he got Hannity to actually let him speak @0:50 The fact that Hannity went on to completely ignore it, in order to keep drilling his preconceived points, is exactly why people are so fed up with people like Hannity and their rhetoric that is disconnected from reality and betrays a clear disingenuous position. From what I saw Hannity and the activist are two sides of the same coin. Your criticisms of him aren't really wrong, but I think they apply equally to the activist as well. I get the same vibe from Hannity. He's the right's (sometimes toned down) version of the race & class bigots from the left. I tire quickly of that style of conservative preaching to the choir, which is why I don't watch FoxNews. They should really hire GH considering his hate segments are the only exposure I get these days. That's something I hadn't heard before. Curious conservatives gave complete control over who would be in the first RNC debate to Fox News if they aren't as popular with conservatives as it seems. EDIT: To put a bow on it, I just watched Lindsey Graham reminiscing about shooting pool in a bar as a 12 year old, illegally gambling, with a corrupt police chief playing right along with everyone. My personal favorite line being "It was stupid, I don't know why I only took 10%, I should of took more" (in reference to when he would gamble with the pro players backing him). I knew the guy was out of touch, but damn... Fox's median viewer age is something like 62+. You're putting way too much into FNC especially for the under 45. As for the RNC and Fox, well it's pretty natural they're going to give the first debate to the only station that is not antagonistic towards the GOP. Fox Business is much better than FNC, but I doubt we'll be seeing Lisa Kennedy moderating a presidential debate anytime soon (or Judge Napolitano, etc.).
It's not that they gave them the debate, but that they let FNC choose who was in it.
As many conservatives apparently don't watch/aren't familiar with FNC here I can understand why many would buy into the typical narrative that all FNC viewers are old and leave it at that. Turns out there's more than that to the story.
Fox News Channel had a strong May, showing double digit growth among younger viewers. In fact, in prime time, FNC is up a whopping +42 percent vs. May 2014 in the A25-54 demo. Among total viewers, FNC is up +11 percent in prime time. With several nights of breaking news from Baltimore, and the crash of the DC to NY Amtrak train, and severe weather in Texas, Fox News proved to be the third most-watched cable network behind TNT and ESPN.
Source
The show that's 2nd most responsible for pulling that demo is "The Five"
Cavuto:137
TheFive:246
Baier:199
Greta:174
O’Reilly:217
Kelly:300
Source
This is what I was talking about yesterday, but today was even better. I think Rand Paul might of thrown a bomb in the middle of the Republican party.
NSA discussion on FNC
Twice As Many Americans Side With Rand Paul Over Mitch McConnell In NSA Debate
Source
Best part of what I've seen politically from Rand is instead of talking about the republicans opposing him, he just talks about how he's actually opposing Obama and lets republicans make the connection in their own head that opposing Rand is supporting Obama.
|
On June 03 2015 06:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2015 18:36 Wegandi wrote:On June 02 2015 14:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2015 14:27 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2015 07:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 02 2015 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2015 06:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 02 2015 01:50 GreenHorizons wrote:+ Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn5JXhxd9rU imo guest on the left doesn't know how to talk to his audience. He sounds like he's speaking to other activists who know the language and already agree with his sentiment. But to someone that isn't already in the club he isn't persuasive and comes off as unnecessarily antagonistic. The opposite with the guest on the right. He seemed level headed and make Hannity look too rough. That's one difference between a politician and an activist. They were essentially saying the same thing, just one was saying it in the language that audience is more familiar with. As for Hannity... goodness. Could of talked about anything with those gentlemen but it was abundantly clear his intention was to get the guests into some sort of 'gotcha' with them saying everything is individual emotional racism (a common dismissal of the issues they wanted to discuss). Hannity intentionally wanted to make them look 'antagonistic' (hence the drilling on things like "Do you know the names of all of the victims?!?" "Is all the violence because racism?!?" "There are black cops" like wtf is that? I know the point he's trying to make but it was tactless to say the least.) The entire interview should of been focused on what the councilman said after he got Hannity to actually let him speak @0:50 The fact that Hannity went on to completely ignore it, in order to keep drilling his preconceived points, is exactly why people are so fed up with people like Hannity and their rhetoric that is disconnected from reality and betrays a clear disingenuous position. From what I saw Hannity and the activist are two sides of the same coin. Your criticisms of him aren't really wrong, but I think they apply equally to the activist as well. I get the same vibe from Hannity. He's the right's (sometimes toned down) version of the race & class bigots from the left. I tire quickly of that style of conservative preaching to the choir, which is why I don't watch FoxNews. They should really hire GH considering his hate segments are the only exposure I get these days. That's something I hadn't heard before. Curious conservatives gave complete control over who would be in the first RNC debate to Fox News if they aren't as popular with conservatives as it seems. EDIT: To put a bow on it, I just watched Lindsey Graham reminiscing about shooting pool in a bar as a 12 year old, illegally gambling, with a corrupt police chief playing right along with everyone. My personal favorite line being "It was stupid, I don't know why I only took 10%, I should of took more" (in reference to when he would gamble with the pro players backing him). I knew the guy was out of touch, but damn... Fox's median viewer age is something like 62+. You're putting way too much into FNC especially for the under 45. As for the RNC and Fox, well it's pretty natural they're going to give the first debate to the only station that is not antagonistic towards the GOP. Fox Business is much better than FNC, but I doubt we'll be seeing Lisa Kennedy moderating a presidential debate anytime soon (or Judge Napolitano, etc.). It's not that they gave them the debate, but that they let FNC choose who was in it. As many conservatives apparently don't watch/aren't familiar with FNC here I can understand why many would buy into the typical narrative that all FNC viewers are old and leave it at that. Turns out there's more than that to the story. Show nested quote +Fox News Channel had a strong May, showing double digit growth among younger viewers. In fact, in prime time, FNC is up a whopping +42 percent vs. May 2014 in the A25-54 demo. Among total viewers, FNC is up +11 percent in prime time. With several nights of breaking news from Baltimore, and the crash of the DC to NY Amtrak train, and severe weather in Texas, Fox News proved to be the third most-watched cable network behind TNT and ESPN. SourceThe show that's 2nd most responsible for pulling that demo is "The Five" SourceThis is what I was talking about yesterday, but today was even better. I think Rand Paul might of thrown a bomb in the middle of the Republican party. NSA discussion on FNCShow nested quote +Twice As Many Americans Side With Rand Paul Over Mitch McConnell In NSA Debate SourceBest part of what I've seen politically from Rand is instead of talking about the republicans opposing him, he just talks about how he's actually opposing Obama and lets republicans make the connection in their own head that opposing Rand is supporting Obama.
I don't want to be overly hostile, but you do know how statistics and what not work, right?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2550377/The-average-age-Fox-Viewers-68-majority-politically-conservative-white.html
Yes, it's a year old, but trust me that number isn't going down anytime soon. The fact that Fox saw a 40% boost in the 25-49 demographic doesn't mean anything when you hardly have any viewers in that age range to begin with. Most of the under 45's don't even watch cable 'news' except to see how out of touch the propaganda organs of the Government are (let's not forget the shilling of CNN for the Iraq War, lmao). So, yeah, you didn't actually refute my point that you can't use FNC as a barometer except of only the most establishment and old fogies in the party.
If I remember correctly, I think Fox Biz. has better 18-49 numbers than FNC and that's not surprising since you had libertarian shows and hosts all throughout that network (E.g. the Independents, Lisa Kennedy, Stossel, Judge Nap, etc.).
Yes, Rand is more politically astute than his dad, so we'll see how much more successful he can be. Though I am more partial to his father's firebrand nature :p
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
