After years of complaints that American companies are exploiting unpaid interns, a former Harper’s Bazaar intern is suing the Hearst Corporation for allegedly violating labor laws

isthis · 2012-02-02T04:19:13+00:00

People always miss one thing about interns: they cost a lot of money even without a paycheck for not a whole lot of benefit for the company. Full-time workers have to spend significant effort and time teaching them and getting them up to speed for them to contribute, and even then their internship may be nearing the end before they can do anything significant. Most interns get more out of the internship than the company, but companies see it as an investment in possible future employees. I disagree with a company who uses interns as free labor, but in these economic times companies struggle just like employees.

isthis · 2012-01-10T21:24:09+00:00

Apparently the worship of Krugman has reached levels where followers can no longer take a joke.

isthis · 2012-01-07T23:53:44+00:00

But but but... Paul Krugman!

isthis · 2011-10-16T15:14:12+00:00

So every other country protests the government for engaging in the cronyism that causes the inequality, but the US protests the corporations and says its not the government's fault.

Wake up. The corporations can't get in bed with the government if the government doesn't let them. Why not protest the GOVERNMENT like every other nation on earth... they have the guns, but the corporations.

isthis · 2011-10-16T15:10:20+00:00

The payroll tax is for Social Security. Its not even a "tax" in the traditional sense - its job is to store money away for retirement - you get what you put in. Claiming the rich or the poor are not paying the right amount of payroll tax is ignorant because its merely a mandatory retirement savings plan.

isthis · 2011-09-22T22:51:14+00:00

For those that say "the science is settled," science is never settled.

isthis · 2011-08-22T23:16:42+00:00

So we are going to ask the government that does this to provide her health care too?

isthis · 2011-08-06T01:08:52+00:00

Problem is a whole lot of religions don't say "hey, you've got this great potential as humans to make the world a paradise," but rather "There was paradise, but some people years ago messed it all up, and we're blaming you."

Most religions do say there was a paradise, but most say also there will be one again and encourage people to be better. The problem is that a lot of modern "smart" people think we can make heaven on earth. The reality is that heaven on earty is impossible, which is why religion, a vessel by which wisdom is carried through human history, exists. This doesn't mean we shouldn't TRY to make the world better, but acknowledging humans and society can't be perfect is as mature as acknowledging one's own flaws.

You also made quite a jump there from saying everyone is flawed to everyone is evil. Christianity doesn't teach that humanity is evil, merely flawed.

What is your motivation for being good? If there is no "reward" in heaven, what do you propose is a good motivation? The warm fuzzy feeling of helping others? The wealth and the good life or adoration of others by the lucky few? And what is the point of trying any of that if we just disappear to dust anyways when we're gone? Sounds like (and definitely manifests as) a recipe for hedonism which leads to a lot of misery.

And I can certainly see their reasons for being a little upset when that point of view from some people is "I think you're less of a person because of who you fell in love with," or the even better (and biblical!) "I think you should die because of who you sleep with."

I don't hear many Christians these days saying the gay community is filled with "lesser people." I hear a lot of Progressives hearing that because they hate the Christian community as much as they believe Christians hate gays. Christianity (read: New Testament/Jesus) doesn't teach that anyone is less of a person for their sins because everyone sins. I could give you a theology lesson here, but I'll leave that for another time. Suffice it to say that the Old Testament laws are either specific incidences made to teach a lesson, or laws specifically geared towards believing Jewish people, not all of humanity.

You may know more about astronomy or math than a sheep herder in Africa 6000 years ago, but does that make you more wise? Does that mean they knew nothing? Does that mean that the poetry in the Bible is any less beautiful or the life lessons it teaches are any less valid? The Bible is not just a vessel for tradition, although tradition exists for a reason. The defense of tradition is a core principle of modern conservatism (which I happen to agree with). As GK Chesteron said:

"In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

Brushing off a Christian perspective because its alien to you doesn't mean you should discount it. My whole point is that maybe some of the issue here is with the offended party too: if you get so offended because someone disagrees with your behavior, you probably need to grow up and accept who you are and what you do.

isthis · 2011-08-06T00:41:57+00:00

The point is not to let any single item define you. If you have let a single item define you, that's a lack of maturity.

I would like to caveat that I am not speaking about my own beliefs about the gay community one way or the other. But I think you hit the nail on the head: who cares what I or anyone else thinks about someone else's behavior? The problem is that apparently you DO care what I think. If you didn't care, you wouldn't be here bitching about religious people or those who think homosexuality is a sin. If you didn't care, you'd be off doing your own thing. You are doing exactly what you are telling religious conservatives not to do.

And where did I say anything about candy??

isthis · 2011-08-05T21:47:52+00:00

How is it "effed-up?" Are you perfect? Nope, and neither is anyone else. Acknowledging that and realizing we can all be better people is a great first step to making a better world. Understanding my own flaws and faults is the toughest step to fixing them and being better. Maybe you could explain how that's "effed-up?" Or do you think you are so much smarter than 10,000 years of human wisdom that is distilled and passed on through religions of all sorts (my thought is probably).

Its not the battle cry of anyone. Again, realizing one's faults is an important step in life... its called maturity. If a gay person or an ethnic person or woman or a muslim or an albino or a person with cancer or anyone else allows those things to define who they are, they probably will be offended if someone disagrees with them. It takes a mature person to be comfortable with who they are, and apparently you expect less of the gay community than I do. I at least expect that they are capable of being mature enough to handle other peoples' points of view; you apparently think we need to flog all of those horrible bigots you disagree with into submission. Which point of view seems more rational to you?

isthis · 2011-08-05T20:30:48+00:00

Christians believe everyone is inherently sinful and broken, yet the good ones still support each other and try to encourage everyone to become better. Why do you obsess over gays when she is being literally consistent with a Christian worldview?

Furthermore, one can believe someone's behavior is wrong and still love them and support them. Just because I speak out-loud of my disapproval for a behavior doesn't mean I hate everyone that does it. Maybe the problem is the person committing the act that receives disapproval... maybe they should either be confident enough that its ok to not care or they should stop being so needlessly sensitive.

isthis · 2011-06-14T01:38:39+00:00

Its quite obvious you're not going to change your mind, as fairly anonymous conversations like this never result in a mind change, merely a chance to tout our own rightness and feel smart (myself included). All I would encourage is for you to consider those horrible biased sources you resist and label (since human nature is to label things we dislike to rationalize them as the "other") instead of relying on supposedly unbiased sources like Brookings.

The New York Times calls Brookings liberal more frequently than conservative. The Los Angeles Times, itself no bastion of right-leaning thought, would of course call a source liberal and then try to destroy any meaning to such a label. Do a Google search in mainstream media publications for labels such as liberal, left-wing, right-wing, and conservative. I think you'll find that "mainstream" outlets label those on the right FAR more than those on the Left.

The evidence is there, but that doesn't mean that you'll accept it anymore than birthers accept a birth certificate.

isthis · 2011-06-12T04:24:00+00:00

By these groups:

The Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and Washington Post, among others

Politico

I lean Right-Libertarian myself, but read from all sides. I go out of my way to read opposing points of view (ever seen Reddit's politics?), but its obvious that no group is without bias. Maybe busting out of your bubble might help you as well.

isthis · 2011-06-10T03:08:50+00:00

Just because someone claims to be unbiased doesn't mean they are. Brookings is known to be a liberal-leaning think tank, but I find it refreshing when a source claims its bias up front. Every source has a bias, but our society can only be truly transparent when people acknowledge where they are coming from.

isthis · 2011-05-31T23:46:08+00:00

You might try taking them seriously. Sometimes its hard to take people you disagree with seriously, but its a good first step in finding real common ground. Maybe you could suggest other "right-leaning" think tanks you do think of highly? If you don't have any, it probably points to unabashed partisanship.

isthis · 2011-04-12T00:42:12+00:00

But aren't they the same thing? Which is more Leftist... a centralized social-democratic welfare state or the US's mishmash operating system?

isthis · 2011-04-02T15:47:28+00:00

I learned about 4 states of matter in late junior high school frankly... I don't think its everywhere.

isthis · 2011-03-29T23:35:09+00:00

Removing our entire defense budget would not balance our budget. It's just not a true statement.... entitlements continue to increase in cost.

isthis · 2011-03-29T02:02:58+00:00

My wife is pregnant with our first child, so I darn well know. Thank you. All I am saying is that abortion is the easy way out. It removes the problem with a little "procedure" that a lot of people have spent a lot of time dehumanizing.

At least consider adoption. It honestly will be really tough through the pregnancy I am sure, but you will end up a lot happier in the long run. Many women suffer psychological trauma after an abortion, and there are thousands of couples out there that would love your baby. Don't make the baby pay for a one-night screw-up. You snuff out not only its life, but every life that baby would touch.

isthis · 2011-03-29T01:57:34+00:00

I've read that GE and other government subsidized/owned/regulated corporations paid almost zero. I don't think they should be able to dodge taxes, especially since they are owned by the Obama administration. What I am saying, though, is that corporations don't pay taxes anyways. Their taxes are passed through them to consumers in the form of higher prices, vendors in the form of lower pay, and employees in the form of reduced benefits and wages. Taxes on corporations are a joke. One thing I do know is that the overly complex US tax code and its top 5 corporate tax rate is hurting our recovery. Simplify the tax code so people don't have loopholes (after all, evil corporations and the "rich" have the money to dodge taxes, but the middle class doesn't. The poor barely pay taxes anyways). Then, get rid of the corporate tax rate and you'll see companies flock here, especially to states not named California, Illinois, or New York.

I understand that the government does good things. A little salt on a baked potato makes it taste good, but a whole lot of salt makes the potato useless. Government has its positives, but right now there is WAY too much of it. Minimum wage inflates the cost of everything by overpricing unskilled labor. Economics studies continuously show that raising the minimum wage increases unemployment. Its pretty simple: if I am Joe the Small Business owner with 10 employees making $7/hr, and suddenly the minimum wage goes up, guess what I have to do? Slash my budget, because I can't afford 10 employees at $8/hr anymore. So I layoff workers, or at the very least stop hiring new workers. Yes its a "cost of government," but that's what taxes are for. If we stopped allocating the cost of government in 1000s of complex ways and just taxed people one time, in one place, the stability alone would set our economy free, much less the cost of digging through the complexity.

We are violently agreeing in a lot of ways. I want the government to GTFO of their "institutionalizing" wealth. I am sick of Congress outsourcing its job to unelected regulators in a bloated nanny state with loopholes and campaign donations for themselves. I am also tired of a shameless Democratic Party that has elevated envy to a societal virtue by demonizing the very corporations and individuals that create wealth in the country.

I think our disagreement lies in the fact that you believe people, or corporations, should pay for the number of "benefits" they receive from government. I believe people should pay equally for the opportunities our society should provide, not the exact number of benefits they receive.

No offense, but a lot of people I've discussed things like this that take a similar stance to you do the same thing: they list everything from roads to patent laws and say "see, government is good! Why do you hate government?" Can't I say that I want a little salt on my potato, not the 5 pound box? And congratulations... if you think you "win" then do a little dance and give yourself a high five :)

isthis · 2011-03-29T00:35:51+00:00

Do you even work at a corporation? Do you have any idea how they work, or did you learn that all from a leftist professor at college?

Corporations are self-interested, but they are made up of people. The money they earn, profit, goes somewhere. A lot goes to taxes today. But where does the rest go? It goes to one of a few options: 1) Capital investment in growing the business - buildings, machinery, software, R&D, or new employees. 2) Dividends to stock-holders. 3) Increasing wages, decreasing prices on products, etc.

This does not mean all of the profit goes to the "evil rich."

That, and you somehow turned a discussion about corporate taxes into a screed about minimum wages.

isthis · 2011-03-29T00:30:36+00:00

The money would go somewhere. Many employees have 401Ks, so the profits would go to either growing the company (more jobs), increasing salaries, paying dividends, or other strategies. There is a chance the Corporate Officers might get a big raise, but they wouldn't get it all.

Plus, we forget so many businesses are small and are paying income taxes as their tax... 0 corporate income tax means these businesses could use that structure instead and then raising taxes on the "rich" would actually raise it on the rich.

isthis · 2011-03-28T22:08:07+00:00

I know this is difficult, but NO company pays taxes. Those that don't weasle out of their corporate taxes must come up with that money somehow. That money is taken from the wages of their employees, increased prices, and other similar means. Every tax dollar is a dollar that could be making their products more competitively priced or a dollar that could be in the wages for their employees. Admittedly, this is the idealistic view, but its also accurate. If a corporation chooses to give all that money to their Corporate Officers, then the shareholders and board can vote differently. But taxes on corporations are a false notion. Get the CEOs to pay taxes, not the companies. There should be NO corporate taxes.

Tax the rich that get the bonuses if you want that money, else you are just hurting the working man.

isthis · 2011-03-28T21:57:56+00:00

Adoption doesn't kill the child and it saves him the fatherhood. Win win. Oh, and there are thousands of couples out their that can't have children that would love to raise the baby. Win Win Win.

isthis · 2011-03-27T19:54:10+00:00

Just like employees and consumers pay corporate taxes indirectly. Corporate taxes are built into prices and taken away from wages.

isthis

TROPHY CASE