Yes.

Every job posting comes with a federally mandated anti-discrimination statement, and with a federally mandated discrimination immigration system.

Those anti-discrimation laws don’t apply to immigration criteria.

That's the point.

This is funny and I take it as evidence that all AI output is grifting.

You don't.

But kids grow up - it doesn't stay this way forever.

> You don't.

I recall my SO asking my relative's wife (mother of three) what to do if you're already out of energy and dinner is not ready.

"Some days there just won't be any dinner for you" was the reply.

Naively it seems like things like frozen ready meals or meal replacers (Soylent, Huel) would be an easy fix (I wouldn't give them to the kids, but for a tired parent it'd be better than nothing).

I'm not a parent though (although planning to be), so am keen to know why that's wrong.

It's not wrong - you do what you can to stay nourished.

The only wrong approaches I can identify is beating yourself up about not preparing a decent meal for yourself and not eating at all.

Both me and my SO lost weight in the first months because we made the former mistake.

Thanks for your comments, it's really helpful to hear other people's experiences :)

It might have been implied. A sandwich or whatever.

I am a parent of 2, and you're right: I've never skipped a dinner, but sometimes that dinner has to be a bowl of cereal.

The webcomic SMBC says it well: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/before

Mac and cheese….

> You don't.

Thank you for saying this. I strongly believe this is the right action until kids are older and start helping around the house. (Still trying to convince my SO though.)

Honestly, raising kids is not that hard if you give yourself permission to be not perfect. Order pizza, avoid using plates when you can, let yard overgrow a bit, hire cleaning service. Bail out of unwanted social obligations. In fact, trying to get approval of others is what makes parenting hard.

Hahahaha so it's illustrated by a triangle with three points of "maoists" (how dated, people are really showing their age), "Nazis", and "liberation"

This is John Birch Society schizotypal stuff, not a definition of "woke".

oh thanks, turns out i'm a wokist, maybe even a wokaholic. I'm addicted to wokahol.

Because much like most of a unions touted benefits, the cost is hidden or diffuse.

If you ban the capacity to do this, then the role stops existing.

I guess my issue is this: why is the burden on me, the employee, when you cannot figure out at what rate you're losing employees after training, what it is costing you, and why you're losing them?

Just like the marketing 'department' of a startup SaaS calculates a Cost Per Customer, figure out what your on-boarding process is costing the company and adjust your salaries across the board to be competitive in that arena. If you're not being competitive - figure out why. Maybe you'll save more money in the long run by providing better leadership training that motivates employees to stay longer, effectively making your cost of on-boarding training worth it. Or, here's a shocker, maybe that training just sucks and you shouldn't put your employees through it anyways.

And if you cannot find a way to be competitive whilst doing so, just like employers have learned to be with health, life, pension, and leave benefits, then your company will sink. There are many professions that many seek employment solely because they don't have the capital to invest into themselves and their training. Why should one open themselves to the burden of both, if there's an alternative?

> I guess my issue is this: why is the burden on me, the employee, when you cannot figure out at what rate you're losing employees after training, what it is costing you, and why you're losing them?

It is not - the choice is on you to pick this employer or another one.

If the role can't exist without indentured servitude, it sounds like the role shouldn't exist at all.

Sounds like a good plan - you can pay out of your own pocket to fire all these people that have jobs that don't fit your quality standards.

> quit either don't hire somebody without the training.

What is better for employees - to have the option to get training and have to stay at the company one year, or to not have the option at all?

It would be best for employees if the training was suppled at employer cost and working conditions were such that they didn't need to quit.

There was a similar story linked a few weeks ago. My comment then still applies. If the value of the training accrues primarily to the employer then the employer should be footing the cost with no strings attached.

A common example is paying for a Masters degree or an industry certification. The value accrues primarily to the employee (or at least, the value is shared). The training is transferable. It's standardized. Etc. Requiring a pay-back period is reasonable here.

The counter-example are training courses as described in the article. The employee was already certified/licensed in the field. The training offered no value to the employee. The employer should be paying for it (but isn't, because this is just an end-run around debt peonage laws).

> What is better for employees - to have the option to get training and have to stay at the company one year, or to not have the option at all?

What is better for employers, provide free training to cheaper employees, or choosing more expensive employees from a smaller pool of trained people?

It surely depends on the market!

It probably depends on setups, but at Robinhood, Jira would take 15 seconds to load a wiki page (any wiki page)

I have a lot to say about Krugman, specially when he talks about Argentina, but he is not wrong here.

It's not a crisis to have a devaluation.

It's not not a crisis either, though. Crisis doesn't really have a formal definition, it's just an extreme devaluation. I agree that what's happened so far is not quite yet a "crisis", but it certainly seems like Krugman was attempting to predict that not-this would happen.

That tweet was 2 days ago and the pound has barely moved against the dollar since then. It lost a few cents, but that's hardly a crisis.

It is a crisis when you already have an inflation crisis. People already can’t afford to keep warm this winter. Therefore, the government is capping energy bills, if there is a currency devaluation the government has to borrow more to maintain the cap...

Even the CDC got involved with this https://stanforddaily.com/2016/07/21/cdc-releases-preliminar...

It's an entire pipeline of billing to extract the tax benefit of insurance.

The real economy has way many more prices than this one - from each store of anything in the country that negotiates from straws to bread. The difference is that these ones happen in a system that has a paper trail from the doctor, to the insurance, and this admin burden is only (apparently) worth it because the vast majority of money in healthcare goes through tax-advantaged insurance.

Cash based payment should suffice for 50~70% of healthcare expenditues and it would have more prices and not have expensive and abusive billing processes.