Knightfox

It's directly beneficial in the short term. The statement obviously needs some caveats like the world coming to an end as a result of Trump's reelection, but in general Trump policies are generally going to directly benefit the middle, upper middle, and upper class white people more than Biden's policies.

• DEI is good for society, but it doesn't add money to my pocket.

• Social Security is probably going to be gone by the time I can collect it, so cutting Social Security means I keep more money now.

• I don't have kids so cutting education funding or making it private would save me money.

• I have a job with great insurance, cutting medicare/medicaid would save me money.

• Global warming and emissions are a huge deal, but no truly meaningful progress is being made with Biden or the rest of the world. If you believe an apocalyptic scenario is the outcome of the current state of things, and we accept that that is inevitable, then why make things harder for myself now? It's like being in a burning house with one person running around with a glass of water and another guy getting out his lighter to light a joint.

Strictly speaking, if we take "everything is going to literally end" off the table as an outcome of a second Trump term then most likely his policies are going to be more directly beneficial to me.

Thankfully I don't feel this way, a rising tide lifts all ships, and we shouldn't look only to next quarter's profits. However, the far left shouldn't bark and bite at people helping advance their agenda for not doing it fast enough, it just alienates the altruistic people who want to help.

I've had this conversation with my SO. Technically speaking the best move for me as a white male would be to support Trump. Instead I vote for Democrats hoping for positive changes for all people. For most of my life I've thought I was "far left" for American standards, but since I've joined portions of Lemmy and Reddit you'd think I was a fucking Republican.

Certain portions of the left would rather spit in their own eye for unrealistic principles, even if it means that a worse alternative is the result.

This is known as a red herring fallacy, the fact that it fused her labia doesn't change the nature of the situation, nor does it increase the gravity of the situation.

"She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap. Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants, which absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks and groin."

Additionanally:

"According to a 2007 report, McDonald's had not reduced the temperature of its coffee, serving it at 176–194 °F (80–90 °C), relying on more sternly worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future injury and liability (though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee). However, in 2013 the New York Times reported that it had lowered its service temperature to 170–180 °F (77–82 °C). The Specialty Coffee Association of America supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served. The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases. Similarly, as of 2004, Starbucks sells coffee at 175–185 °F (79–85 °C), and the executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America reported that the standard serving temperature is 160–185 °F (71–85 °C)."

So not only did it not change the temperature at which most major brands serve coffee, the temperature that was proposed as reasonable by the defense attorneys was also still hot enough to cause third degree burns. I get that she might want them to pay for damages, but she literally dumped it on herself, the reason she was so seriously hurt was because she was 79 years old. If you're buying hot coffee that's freshly brewed then it should be obvious it's hot enough to seriously burn you. If it's over 150 F then you will get major significant burns.

As to the idea that they had been warned:

"Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000."

McDonalds purportedly sells more than 50 million cups of coffee per year, over 10 years that was 500 million cups of coffee. 0.00014% is hardly a "warning."

Most farming is subsidized, the debate then is which one is subsidized more. A bit of a specious argument at the end of the day.

I think that makes a weird sort of sense. I mean, if you're gonna pay 1 person 3x what you pay the others you kinda expect them to shoulder more of the burden. Same goes for Doctors in general and Air Traffic Controllers, the barrier to entry is exceptionally high, the pay is high to match, but the expectations are even higher

I can't speak to the union bit, but I would say most aren't in a Union in the US since most of the US doesn't have Unions. If you're in an area that has them then maybe they get a better deal.

I can't speak to your numbers, but using the same salary comparison searches I used for the Pharmacy Tech position it looks like 3D Animator pay is somewhere between $50-105k national average with LA being $98-150k and NYC being $45-110k. Maybe game industry specific is the cause for your lower numbers?

I think that's the thing, it's not that amazingly well paid. Considering it only requires a high school diploma and a certificate it pays well, but overall you're probably only making around $38-55k per year. I did find some exceptions such as the upper end of NYC techs making $65k, but even LA had a high end of $55k. Maybe the salary data I saw was wrong, but that's not particularly well paying.

The high paying job is the Pharmacist who is probably pulling in $120-160k, but the tech is doing all the real work.

This guy probably looks at it like they aren't conventionally attractive (which isn't true) and they aren't making stupid high salaries.

It's certainly a respectable job, but it's not an overly well paid job which is probably that guys quibble. As with many jobs it depends on the specifics, but it seems like the job pays around $38-55k depending on where you live. It looks like some areas can get a bit higher (NYC had some data indicating $65k/year).

For a job that only requires a high school diploma and a certification that's not bad, it's just not particularly good either. If you have two people making roughly that amount it's probably good enough to live comfortably, but not live very well.

It's the Andrew Tate mentality where the only acceptable partner is either an "Alpha" making $10 million a year and is conventionally attractive or doesn't work at all and is even more conventionally attractive.

Eh, a quick Google search said that Tesla wasn't profitable for 17 years and survived due to government subsidies and investor funding. After that they've been making ~$15 billion per year and sold around 1.3 million cars worldwide per year.

In contrast Toyota sold 10.3 million vehicles and made $61 billion in profit.

As with their 17 years of unprofitable business they are currently more proportionally profitable, but a big portion of that is Musk fanboys and limited supply. If they actually started selling more cars they probably wouldn't be as proportionally profitable.

Additionally, Tesla is supposedly becoming less profitable due to several factors including not making a new model in 10 years, reports that they fraudulently marketed features (being sneaky with how range is calculated so that the true range is way less than advertised), and Elon's antics hurting sales. Elon's antics are a big deal, some people who wanted Teslas before don't want them anymore because they don't want to be associated with him (like flying a Gadsden Flag in the mid 2000s vs now).

Elon's antics don't stop there, he's also hurt the investor's opinion as well. A big reason Tesla's stock was so high is because people were buying them and not selling them. This caused their price to stay super high, but when Elon bought Twitter he sold a ton of stock. The price was at an all time high over $400 per share, his selling cratered it to ~$115, and is currently around $165. Investors don't like it when the owner of a company single handedly tanks their investment so the owner can make a bad investment, even more so when the writing on the wall says he'll sell even more of the stock to fund the bad investment.

Absolutely agree