🔥 | Latest

Job Security: Thank you for job security, excel
Job Security: Thank you for job security, excel

Thank you for job security, excel

Job Security: StUdY To GeT JoB SeCuRiTy by 6800s MORE MEMES
Job Security: StUdY To GeT JoB SeCuRiTy by 6800s
MORE MEMES

StUdY To GeT JoB SeCuRiTy by 6800s MORE MEMES

Job Security: StUdY To GeT JoB SeCuRiTy
Job Security: StUdY To GeT JoB SeCuRiTy

StUdY To GeT JoB SeCuRiTy

Job Security: Fig. 1: Capitalism explained by Capitalists Fig, 2: Socialism explained by Socialists Demand Supply Equilibrium Value (relative to inflation, btw) Tax Compensation (Businesses and Rich don't pay taxes they tag them to the prices) +Labor Costs This system will evenutally eliminate the poor and rich Higher Value EquilibriumValue and create one big "working Pensions class," free to reap the whole Value fruits of their labor and those least fortunate members of society will be assisted Price (Higher than equilibrium, as result of costs) Is the price too high for a particular consumer? (Y/N) Equilibrium Value Cost- Fail Equilibrium Value > Cost Win Social Bureacracy Potential sales lost: Potential Capital lost Potential Job Growth lost MiddlePrograms Class $Sale $ Regulation Sales Profit Profits Profit - Shares - Executive Income The employed get money to spend in the market, in turn not only funding other workers via trade, but the businesses who employ more workers; the result is a self-sufficient economy without recourse to government (taxes and labor costs would reduce in the absence of intervention, lowering prices and improving the number of sales.) Capital - Marketing - Research and Development nsion laxes Job Growth All in all, the businessman and shareholders get rich, con- sumers get what they want, workers get their cut, and the poor find jobs Woot Fig. 3: Socialism explained by Capitalists Fig. 4: Capitalism explained by Socialists 19 2 This sytem wil evernutalty ellminato tho poor and rich1. The aim of socialism is to bring the lower and croato one big "workin classes into the middle class and dissolve the class, free to reap the whole PoorPensions u e ubos and oeupper classes; what is not realized here is the east fortunate members of existance of a centralized bureaucracy would only sockety w5 isedset up a new upper class of "bureaucratic elites Socia MiddleProgram Bureacracy privileging themselves with the primary hold on capital and resources as they monopolize distribu- tion; this solution to "class warfare" defeats itself 2. While some individuals are truly disadvantaged and in need of help, automatically labeling the poor as "in need" is a sure way to keep them so. Not only is the welfare system flawed in acting as a "free lunch" to the unwilling, but also a trap, waiting to backfire as soon as individuals standard of living raises to a point where they no longer qualify for aid, but will not maintain a good standard of living for some time until they are independant RichLabor Taxes 4 . The services provided by bureaucracy are poor and make for a tax more expensive than any bill or pricetag on the narket; they are poor for the same reason a diabetic has more incentive to excercise than a perfectly fit individual here's always the threat of health, metaphorically job security. Also, they are more expensive due to added-on ureaucratic costs (paperwork, wages, etc.) and the cost for the actual services themselves, even more so for high- end service. 4. By putting the tax burden on the rich and business, one is sure to hamper industry; every cent of a rofit taxed is a cent lost to being able to provide more jobs, better goods and services, and a better working facility This is to assume that the bureaucracy won't own and manage the workplaces, in which the threat of failure and rofit loss would not factor in decision-making for the company's (worker's) best interests. 5. The fallacy in criticizing he rich as greedy, manipulative, and authoritative is that socialism's alternative, bureaucracy, is in essence no differ nt the problem now is the cronies are working together instead of competing. 6. Like taxation, regulation is a hin- rance to industry; instead of directly cutting into capital, it is a loss of potential gains. While they are good meaning egulations hinder the efficiency and production capabilities of the workplace, only hurting the worker in the end. 7 Soviet Russia, China and North Korea are/were socialist economies; next up, America <p>đź…±hit on yourself via /r/dank_meme <a href="http://ift.tt/2eGiP9n">http://ift.tt/2eGiP9n</a></p>
Job Security: Fig. 1: Capitalism
 explained by Capitalists
 Fig, 2: Socialism
 explained by Socialists
 Demand Supply
 Equilibrium Value (relative to inflation, btw)
 Tax Compensation (Businesses and Rich don't pay taxes
 they tag them to the prices)
 +Labor Costs
 This system will evenutally
 eliminate the poor and rich
 Higher
 Value EquilibriumValue
 and create one big "working
 Pensions
 class," free to reap the whole
 Value
 fruits of their labor and those
 least fortunate members of
 society will be assisted
 Price (Higher than equilibrium, as result of costs)
 Is the price too high for a particular consumer? (Y/N)
 Equilibrium Value Cost- Fail
 Equilibrium Value > Cost Win
 Social
 Bureacracy
 Potential sales lost:
 Potential Capital lost
 Potential Job Growth lost
 MiddlePrograms
 Class
 $Sale $
 Regulation
 Sales Profit
 Profits
 Profit
 - Shares
 - Executive Income
 The employed get money to spend in the market, in turn not
 only funding other workers via trade, but the businesses who
 employ more workers; the result is a self-sufficient economy
 without recourse to government (taxes and labor costs would
 reduce in the absence of intervention, lowering prices and
 improving the number of sales.)
 Capital
 - Marketing
 - Research and Development
 nsion
 laxes
 Job Growth
 All in all, the businessman and shareholders get rich, con-
 sumers get what they want, workers get their cut, and the
 poor find jobs
 Woot
 Fig. 3: Socialism
 explained by Capitalists
 Fig. 4: Capitalism
 explained by Socialists
 19
 2
 This sytem wil evernutalty
 ellminato tho poor and rich1. The aim of socialism is to bring the lower
 and croato one big "workin classes into the middle class and dissolve the
 class, free to reap the whole
 PoorPensions u e ubos and oeupper classes; what is not realized here is the
 east fortunate members of
 existance of a centralized bureaucracy would only
 sockety w5 isedset up a new upper class of "bureaucratic elites
 Socia
 MiddleProgram
 Bureacracy privileging themselves with the primary hold on
 capital and resources as they monopolize distribu-
 tion; this solution to "class warfare" defeats itself
 2. While some individuals are truly disadvantaged
 and in need of help, automatically labeling the poor
 as "in need" is a sure way to keep them so. Not
 only is the welfare system flawed in acting as a
 "free lunch" to the unwilling, but also a trap, waiting
 to backfire as soon as individuals standard of living
 raises to a point where they no longer qualify for
 aid, but will not maintain a good standard of living
 for some time until they are independant
 RichLabor
 Taxes
 4
 . The services provided by bureaucracy are poor and make for a tax more expensive than any bill or pricetag on the
 narket; they are poor for the same reason a diabetic has more incentive to excercise than a perfectly fit individual
 here's always the threat of health, metaphorically job security. Also, they are more expensive due to added-on
 ureaucratic costs (paperwork, wages, etc.) and the cost for the actual services themselves, even more so for high-
 end service. 4. By putting the tax burden on the rich and business, one is sure to hamper industry; every cent of a
 rofit taxed is a cent lost to being able to provide more jobs, better goods and services, and a better working facility
 This is to assume that the bureaucracy won't own and manage the workplaces, in which the threat of failure and
 rofit loss would not factor in decision-making for the company's (worker's) best interests. 5. The fallacy in criticizing
 he rich as greedy, manipulative, and authoritative is that socialism's alternative, bureaucracy, is in essence no differ
 nt the problem now is the cronies are working together instead of competing. 6. Like taxation, regulation is a hin-
 rance to industry; instead of directly cutting into capital, it is a loss of potential gains. While they are good meaning
 egulations hinder the efficiency and production capabilities of the workplace, only hurting the worker in the end. 7
 Soviet Russia, China and North Korea are/were socialist economies; next up, America
<p>đź…±hit on yourself via /r/dank_meme <a href="http://ift.tt/2eGiP9n">http://ift.tt/2eGiP9n</a></p>

<p>đź…±hit on yourself via /r/dank_meme <a href="http://ift.tt/2eGiP9n">http://ift.tt/2eGiP9n</a></p>

Job Security: GARBAGE DISPOSALWORKERS ALMOST %100 MALE NO CALL FOR EQUALITY SEWER WORKERS ALMOST %100 MALE NO CALL FOR EQUALITY COALMINERS OVER%90 MALE NO CALL FOR EQUALITY COMFORTABLE BLUECOLLARJOBS CALL FOR EQUALITY! EMPOWER WOMEN!MORE WOMEN ATWORKPLACE! insanityallegra: the-exercist: Is that so? Women have been a leading force in sanitation strikes, calling for equal treatment and job security. This particular service industry has been the focus of multiple feminist manifestos and employment goals. Women fought long and hard to gain the right to work in sanitation, and they’re continuing that effort to open up the field more. This issue is so big that Parks and Rec even made an episode about it.  Female sewer workers have repeatedly sued the DEP for unfair treatment, seeking to open up the industry and gain equal status with their male peers. Sewer work is often targeted for its biased hiring practices. Hundreds of female candidates fight for limited available positions, but most are turned away, despite having the necessary experience and skills. Feminist workers recognize that these women are willing and able to do the work, but aren’t getting the opportunity to gain employment here.  Historically, coal mining is one of the most highly targeted careers for gender bias. Women have been petitioning for the opportunity to mine safely since the Industrial Revolution. This is actually one of the primary and best studied examples of women fighting to enter traditionally male fields. Lots of women, who both succeeded in the mines and didn’t, continue to petition for increased access to this field.  And yeah, women want white collar jobs too. Go figure - A diverse population of women, with different abilities, interests and levels of education, are all fighting for the right to seek diverse forms of employment. Fighting for equality in one sphere doesn’t mean that we’ve forgotten about the others.  Just because you aren’t paying attention to the feminist movement doesn’t mean that the feminist movement is nonexistent.  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Job Security: GARBAGE DISPOSALWORKERS
 ALMOST %100 MALE
 NO CALL FOR EQUALITY
 SEWER WORKERS ALMOST %100 MALE
 NO CALL FOR EQUALITY
 COALMINERS OVER%90 MALE
 NO CALL FOR EQUALITY
 COMFORTABLE BLUECOLLARJOBS
 CALL FOR EQUALITY! EMPOWER
 WOMEN!MORE WOMEN ATWORKPLACE!
insanityallegra:

the-exercist:

Is that so?

Women have been a leading force in sanitation strikes, calling for equal treatment and job security. This particular service industry has been the focus of multiple feminist manifestos and employment goals. Women fought long and hard to gain the right to work in sanitation, and they’re continuing that effort to open up the field more. This issue is so big that Parks and Rec even made an episode about it. 

Female sewer workers have repeatedly sued the DEP for unfair treatment, seeking to open up the industry and gain equal status with their male peers. Sewer work is often targeted for its biased hiring practices. Hundreds of female candidates fight for limited available positions, but most are turned away, despite having the necessary experience and skills. Feminist workers recognize that these women are willing and able to do the work, but aren’t getting the opportunity to gain employment here. 

Historically, coal mining is one of the most highly targeted careers for gender bias. Women have been petitioning for the opportunity to mine safely since the Industrial Revolution. This is actually one of the primary and best studied examples of women fighting to enter traditionally male fields. Lots of women, who both succeeded in the mines and didn’t, continue to petition for increased access to this field. 
And yeah, women want white collar jobs too. Go figure - A diverse population of women, with different abilities, interests and levels of education, are all fighting for the right to seek diverse forms of employment. Fighting for equality in one sphere doesn’t mean that we’ve forgotten about the others. 
Just because you aren’t paying attention to the feminist movement doesn’t mean that the feminist movement is nonexistent. 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

insanityallegra: the-exercist: Is that so? Women have been a leading force in sanitation strikes, calling for equal treatment and job...