Non-IT News Thread
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
I'm not sure how wanting to make sure people only enter legally, rather than illegally crossing the border equates to Hate.
Trump has done things like refer to all Hispanics as Mexicans (Pitbull is Cuban, for example) and saying that Mexicans are rapists. None of this has much to do with border crossings.
There is a separate question, not related to Trump, around if having the inability to cross in legally is related to hate, but that's not the issue with Trump.
-
Winged dragon fossil discovered: Dinosaur find: Velociraptor ancestor was 'winged dragon'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33510288 -
In case anyone is not watching the markets, China lost 8.5% of their market value yesterday in epic trading which is pretty close to the theoretical maximum that the market there can lose in a single day as China as a 10% cap per stock per day loss before trading automatically stops. To lose anything close to 8.5% means that most stocks had to lose their full 10%, any little gains or non-maximum losses by any stock anywhere would keep them from having the full market lose 10%.
Today, they have lost another 1.7% already. This is after a 30% loss a month ago.
-
And how is this not worse than Greece?
-
@Dashrender said:
And how is this not worse than Greece?
It might easily be, but China is a tiny economy compared to Europe. China bursting their bubble is nothing compared to a true economic collapse in Europe. It's not on par at all.
-
Keep in mind two things....
-
This is market capitalization, not economic output. This isn't real money we are talking about. This is the amount investors are "trading China shares" for, it has no direct impact on what China is producing (but does make it harder for them to start new companies.)
-
This is a bubble bursting, like the .com bubble of the early 2000s. People put money in like crazy with no clear idea how they were going to make profit - then people figured out that they were investing in nothing and it burst. That's all that is going on here. It's a market adjustment.
-
-
Greece, which might stabilize, is a potential collapse with deep reaching ramifications in an economy so much larger than China's and the risk is in real money, not market capitalization. Wholly different things. The Greece situation is the biggest economic risk since 1929, maybe worse because the 1929 collapse was mostly fueled by market capitalization looses, not primarily loss of monetary exchange. The Greece situation is almost purely the later making it far, far worse.
-
Maybe after Micro and Macro economics I'll understand what you are talking about better.
-
@Dashrender said:
Maybe after Micro and Macro economics I'll understand what you are talking about better.
Economics classes will talk about the national economies but rarely delve into investment banking, which is what is going on in China.
Here is another way to look at it...
Greece: Collapse of national economy and loss of functional currency. This means the country itself will have no money and will do huge damage, possibly causing the collapse, of the world's actual largest economy which is so much bigger than either the US or China.
China: Loss of "investments" that never existed anyway. People buy stocks, stocks have an imaginary value, they went up more than they should have, now they are coming down to someplace more sensible, reckless investors lose some money.
Not comparable events really. Don't get me wrong, the China situation is enormous. But there is no economic risk in our lifetimes comparable to the Greece situation. What China is going through is normal. What Greece faces is a failure with nothing to compare against as a collapse of that size has never happened in history.
-
Another way to think about China....
YOU buy 100 shares of ChinaCom (an imaginary cell phone company in China.) You buy them for $100 per share. So you have spent $10,000 dollars.
OTHER people buy shares of ChinaCom over time and are eventually spending $200 per share. In your head, you think that you can sell what you have for twice what you paid. You imagine that you have made $10,000 on top of your investment. You have a spring in your step.
OTHER people stop buying shares of ChinaCom at $200 and start buying around $130.
Did YOU earn 30%? Or did YOU lose 60%? All perspective. You still earned on your investment, but not as much as you had imagined that you had. But you never sold the stocks so you never actually earned that money. Losing market cap is not the same as a collapse.
And the money being lost isn't necessarily in China. Lots of American investors are buying Chinese stocks. So the market cap losses are spread out all over the world.
-
Buffalo, New York: Snow Piles Still Melting from Last Winter's Record Storm
Piles of snow dumped in November at the city's abandoned Central Terminal railroad station remain to this day, up to 10 feet high in some places, WGRZ reported.
-
JCPenney's send home employee for wearing outfit that is "too revealing." But most importantly what it revealed was hypocrisy since the outfit was purchased from the store itself from it's women's career section.
-
@mlnews said:
JCPenney's send home employee for wearing outfit that is "too revealing." But most importantly what it revealed was hypocrisy since the outfit was purchased from the store itself from it's women's career section.
Doesn't matter where she purchased it. Their dress code is not discriminatory. It clearly forbids shorts to all employees. This is a known activist trying to create an issue where none exists.
-
Want to make a point and stand up for the rights of some group? Fine. But don't break the rules and call it the company's problem.
-
@JaredBusch said:
Doesn't matter where she purchased it.
Not legally it doesn't, but that's not the issue. The question she's asking is about discrimination. Does JCPenney's sell short shorts in the men's career section?
-
Why would they ever suggest that shorts are a career clothing option? Outside of the tropics, and very rarely there, are shorts considered professional.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@JaredBusch said:
Doesn't matter where she purchased it.
Not legally it doesn't, but that's not the issue. The question she's asking is about discrimination. Does JCPenney's sell short shorts in the men's career section?
No, it is not about discrimination. JC Penny's "Career" section caters to all people. At some employers shorts are perfectly acceptable.
This still has nothing to do with showing up to work in an outfit that it against the rules for ALL employees. -
@scottalanmiller said:
Why would they ever suggest that shorts are a career clothing option? Outside of the tropics, and very rarely there, are shorts considered professional.
You want to make that argument? Fine. That is not the argument she is making. And before you make the argument, you need to go to a store and fact check the men's career section.
-
@JaredBusch said:
Want to make a point and stand up for the rights of some group? Fine. But don't break the rules and call it the company's problem.
But it's not about the rules, no one said that. At least not in the article. The issue is around how women's clothing is treated, not that the rules themselves were bad. I didn't see that suggested anywhere. Are you reading a different article?
Her issue was with the combination of things - that for a girl to go buy what JCPenney's calls career clothing is recognized by JCPenney's themselves as not being acceptable. Women really are challenged by this in the workplace, this is a real issue. It's very hard for a girl to understand what is considered business appropriate and if JCPenney's markets one thing and actively doesn't agree with their own marketing it's suggestive of a problem. And that's the most that the article implies.
-
@JaredBusch said:
You want to make that argument? Fine. That is not the argument she is making. And before you make the argument, you need to go to a store and fact check the men's career section.
If she is making more of an argument that I will agree with you. But that argument was not portrayed in the news article.
