Genuine question from someone who probably (given your choices) agrees with you politically most of the time: do any of these strike you as acceptable news (i.e. non-editorial) sources? If so, why?
Not anymore, really. It was the case a couple of years ago but right now, for rank-and-file employees, Google downlevels heavily and targets around 80% of the market rate. For some reason, people are still flocking at their doors and because of high supply of candidates, they can afford to be both very selective and very cheap.
I have a suspicion given a bunch of things happening there (of which I have only outsider knowledge, mind you) that they're already well into a transition to a more boring bigco stance & structure, and are just letting their reputational momentum carry them until people notice rather than coming out and saying that. Starting to push comp downward would be in line with that.
that's what 'my' (as it's the same person pinging me for the past couple of years) recruiter keeps telling me. It's not a net plus considering that I can just look elsewhere in the first place. No point in taking a paycheck cut for a while to do some boring work for a company about which I have ethical concerns so that maybe when I want to change jobs I'll have a competitive edge.
Talent unions set minimum pay scales, not maximums.
Hollywood actors are part of a union (SAG). Do you think that Tom Cruise got paid the same as an extra that was also in the SAG for the last Mission Impossible?
I would very much like to know which broadcast or cable shows you think use non-union labor, because that would be a violation of almost all studios agreements with the unions.
AFAIK, only Netflix uses non-union labor on shows...and even they have entered into negotiations with multiple unions.
Union rules part of some union collective bargaining agreements are that everyone who works there has to be part of the union. Many states that do have right to work laws still force companies to apply union agreements to even those who are not part of the union.
I don't think the law is driving people to tobacco. The law seems to basically give up on incorrigible cigarette smokers who won't (can't, even if they try?) be swayed by the best of intentions and data, and trying to ensure that less well-informed people don't fall prey to fancy e-cigarette ads which don't do much to specify how much nicotine they contain and how addictive they are.
I agree that it's not the best of implementations. Unsure how effective it will be though, but it's one of the easiest to cook up.
edit: I fully support downvotes if you think this comment is insensitive, but at least provide a bit of logic so I can understand what I might be missing?
You don't have a clue. The alternative for many of (myself included) is cigarettes, not quitting. You can call us lazy, weak, whatever, it doesn't matter; we like smoking and we're not going to stop.
Yes, I don't have a clue. No, I'm not calling you weak/lazy/whatever. Incorrigible doesn't mean either of these things. You like smoking, feel free to do so. I'm just saying that it's known that nicotine, in general, is a bad idea. If you know that and yet you smoke, go ahead. But there's going to be efforts from any reasonable government to not get any new members to the club.
> we like smoking, and we're not going to stop
I have a feeling that you don't mean that, but would you rather have a bunch of kids thinking they're doing a cool thing (apparently a lot of kids used to think that about Juul not too long ago in the States)? For them, cigarette's not going to be a substitute as it is for smokers currently. Cigarettes are already that icky thing old people do and cause lung cancer (basically their favorite movie star told them so for 2 years).
By all means, smokers can continue smoking, but they should expect some backlash towards your new favorite thing because it might be less harmful than smoking, but is still harmful for potential new users.
>I have a feeling that you don't mean that, but would you rather have a bunch of kids thinking they're doing a cool thing (apparently a lot of kids used to think that about Juul not too long ago in the States)?
I do, and please spare me the "think of the children" argument. It's not a good enough reason to infringe upon my rights and health. Kids have and will do things that are bad for them. It's inevitable. I'm not saying don't try to curb it, just don't punish me at the same time. Make it harder to get for anyone under 21. Institute reasonable regulations for juice manufacturers. I'm fine with that.
>By all means, smokers can continue smoking, but they should expect some backlash towards your new favorite thing because it might be less harmful than smoking, but is still harmful for potential new users.
Banning it completely is far from "some backlash".
> please spare me the "think of the children" argument.
For the sake or argument, why? Don't they deserve some thought? Or are you completely insensitive to so many of the teenagers who've gotten addicted and can't go back to a nicotine-free life?
> It's not a good enough reason to infringe upon my rights and health
What's a guard rail for you is a potential car crash for the rest.
> It's inevitable. I'm not saying don't try to curb it, just don't punish me at the same time. Make it harder to get for anyone under 21. Institute reasonable regulations for juice manufacturers. I'm fine with that.
I'm sure that's what they said (and maybe did) about cigarettes. How's that going? "We like it and we're not going to stop" -- that's what an entire generation which didn't have full knowledge about the ill effects of smoking might be saying. That's what a million vapers from the next generation are going to say because they didn't have full knowledge of the harms, and people better hope it's just an addiction issue and not a health one. Kids will probably always do what's bad for them, but it's up to the adults to minimize damage. And yes, there's a gap. A Juul is going to reach middle India faster than the knowledge that it's addictive and should be handled with care.
> Banning it completely is far from "some backlash".
Yes, and I didn't say it was perfect; in fact I believe it might end up having an opposite effect. But the reasonable ways out haven't worked well. There's a very high probability that the government knows this too, and is going to end up trying all the steps you suggested. But at least the message is out.
>For the sake or argument, why? Don't they deserve some thought? Or are you completely insensitive to so many of the teenagers who've gotten addicted and can't go back to a nicotine-free life?
Because it's an emotional response that gets people all worked up and all of a sudden facts, logic, and adult choice go out the window. There is a wide array of actions which can be taken to curb child use which are far short of a complete ban, and let's not forget that this all began with "VAPING IS KILLIN PEOPLE!" headlines, an issue which has nothing to do with vaping in general or its long term effects.
>What's a guard rail for you is a potential car crash for the rest.
How so? We have no reason to believe that vaping is harmful long term. It's a risk, sure, but "car crash"? Based on what exactly?
>I'm sure that's what they said (and maybe did) about cigarettes. How's that going?
Smoking rates are way down. Why do you think it's your responsibility or right to dictate whether or not I can smoke?
>But the reasonable ways out haven't worked well.
What are those? What have we tried so far? Btw, cigarettes are still perfectly legal!
> What are those? What have we tried so far? Btw, cigarettes are still perfectly legal!
Why do you think that is? Even after all those full-pack warnings! Don't people know they're bad?! And to answer what we tried: Gutka (a form of tobacco) banned in most Indian states. Ban on advertising of alcohol and tobacco products. Full scale cancer pictures on cigarette boxes. Why not a blanket ban? Because, well, people want it, just as much as you're vigorously defending now... the ban on vaping is before the majority starts wanting that too. It sucks, but in the eyes of the government, it's something which is easier to defend.
> and let's not forget that this all began with "VAPING IS KILLIN PEOPLE!"
No, it began with people getting hooked to nicotine-delivery substances and not being able to stop.
> How so? We have no reason to believe that vaping is harmful long term. It's a risk, sure, but "car crash"? Based on what exactly?
Vaping might not be bad health-wise. Nicotine addiction is bad, at least on economic consequences (remember, this isn't a rich country, so for many people it's a choice between nicotine and other necessary goods), and might be multiple-packs-a-day bad, because you know, addiction. I'm not sure if I want to wait for multiple generations to get hooked up to addiction before the health results of multi-decades of careful research (sometimes sponsored by vaping companies) are out.
> Smoking rates are way down. Why do you think it's your responsibility or right to dictate whether or not I can smoke?
Yeah, and look what that took. Millions of people dying before a dent in the numbers (and let's not attribute that to vaping, at least in India, because it hasn't caught hold on that scale yet). A developing country can't see people die for that long for addiction risk declines. And yes, it is my right as a citizen to support something I know is curbing a bad thing before it gets hold in my country. You might be benefiting from vaping, but I don't see an issue in preventing large companies peddling more bad stuff to people, kids or otherwise.
Again, the last thing I would say is helpful is banning things, and I'm kind of starting to understand your points as well. But vigorous defense of nicotine isn't the right way to go IMO. We can trade arguments all we want, and honestly, I'm not fully antagonistic against anything here, but it is my belief that I'd like to make a smoke-free person's opinion heard alongside people who are struggling with quitting, or don't want to. I enjoy a smoke-free and addiction-free life, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it, but it took me a lot of fighting peer pressure + manipulative advertising to be in this position today. It shouldn't have been a fight at all, but there's no company which is going to profit from non-smoking/teetotalism/whatever, and governments aren't going to see revenues from it.
>Why do you think that is? Even after all those full-pack warnings! Don't people know they're bad?! And to answer what we tried: Gutka (a form of tobacco) banned in most Indian states. Ban on advertising of alcohol and tobacco products.
I thought we were talking about vaping. I already said I was more than fine with restricting purchase, advertising, etc. in the same way we do with tobacco. But no, it's now a ban, and we've tried nothing.
>No, it began with people getting hooked to nicotine-delivery substances and not being able to stop.
That's ridiculous. Of course the current hysteria did. Whether or not I want to be hooked on nicotine is none of your damn business.
>Nicotine addiction is bad, at least on economic consequences (remember, this isn't a rich country, so for many people it's a choice between nicotine and other necessary goods)
Again, don't need to be people's nannies. Do we have real data on that or are you just thinking aloud? Are there no other vices that would take its place? C'mon.
>I'm not sure if I want to wait for multiple generations to get hooked up to addiction before the health results of multi-decades of careful research (sometimes sponsored by vaping companies) are out.
I'm not sure it should be up to you. That's my point.
>And yes, it is my right as a citizen to support something I know is curbing a bad thing before it gets hold in my country.
You don't know it's a bad thing. In a vacuum where it is the only harmful substance known to man, sure, but you ignore the fact that people are just going to go back to cigarettes. Why isn't your country as concerned with those?
>Again, the last thing I would say is helpful is banning things, and I'm kind of starting to understand your points as well. But vigorous defense of nicotine isn't the right way to go IMO.
I'm not out to defend nicotine. I wouldn't want my son to start vaping, but we have to weigh what we lose at the same time we discuss what we may gain.
One thing I'd like you to understand is that, from my end, I'm worried. I'm worried I'm going to lose vaping and will go back to cigarettes. I hope I don't, but I've failed before, and I have a family who is worried as well.
> One thing I'd like you to understand is that, from my end, I'm worried. I'm worried I'm going to lose vaping and will go back to cigarettes. I hope I don't, but I've failed before, and I have a family who is worried as well.
Sorry to hear that. I didn't intend to add to your worries; this was all for purposes of a debate. I do hope things turns out well for you.
It matters because it tells you what the actual intentions of the government are. There is a massive cigarette/tobacco lobby that might have influenced the decision since e-cigarettes were eating into their profits. Tobacco farmers had previously petitioned [1] the government to ban e-cigarettes.
Yeah, it does. If you're addicted to nicotine because you've been vaping up to this point and are looking for an alternative, what's your next best option (aside from quitting)?
Yes it matters if they are making it illegal because they actually care about people's health, and if so then they need to apply the law equally to reflect that.
