My sister early voted in Nevada. It took THREE HOURS (they only offered one day of early voting in her area). She saw lots of people leave the line before voting.
She also ran into a Bloomberg supporter who didn't know he wasn't on the ballot and that you can't write in people in Nevada's caucus. Apparently the Bloomberg supporter got pretty fired up, lol.
It's crazy to me that Trumpers are spreading this story when the president uses an unsecured phone to call ambassadors in foreign countries and lets anyone walk around Mar a Lago while he decides who to bomb next. Talk about a security concern.
I fully understand why asking salary history is not okay because of how it disadvantages women, POC and others who, for whatever reason, have been comparatively underpaid. But asking salary expectations isn't quite the same. I guess it's problematic because people with privilege are more likely to make a more audacious ask, and end up being paid more? ETA: I think she was right in her response, but could have been more clear about it.
Practically speaking, I can also see how this practice could disqualify good candidates who might happily agree to the employer's ideal salary once they see the full package, even if they had initially hoped for more. I think AAM also makes a good point about how asking a candidate what they want, when they have very limited context, doesn't really make sense. What does the employer lose by stating the salary range upfront?
But salary expectations are almost always tied to salary history. If you've always made $20/hr, you're unlikely to ask for $30/hr. Plus, think about how men apply for jobs if they meet 60% of the requirements while women often only apply if they're at like 110%. In salary negotiations, men often get higher starting salaries and higher raises, both because they are more likely to demand more and because employers are more receptive to high asks from men.
I was on a salary equity committee in academia where a dean told me the university just HAD to give three male professors raises . . . because they asked. None of the women professors asked, and as a result the university's salary equity got worse. And the (female) dean didn't see any problems with only giving raises to people who specifically walked into her office and demanded a raise.
IMO, the only reason employers don't state salary ranges upfront is to screw over employees--just like this letter writer pretty much admits.
I guess I'm just unclear why asking/talking about salary during the interview process would be off-limits for either party. I am applying for a job, to make money. You are hiring someone to do a job, for money. The amount of money I expect and the amount of money you can offer me are pretty much the most important part of the conversation in my opinion. I think both parties should be totally open about salary, and I'm not sure why it's assumed this is an uncomfortable or inappropriate thing?
TL/DR: Salaries should be included in the job posting. It saves everyone time.
Because when a company asks a job candidate to name their ideal salary, the job candidate feels pressured to state a "competitive" salary and the practice often results in employees being underpaid. Or white men earning higher salaries because companies are more open to salary negotiations from them. In practice, it leads to wage discrimination and violates the law.
And it's definitely uncomfortable when a company pressures YOU to name numbers first!
No one is arguing that companies shouldn't mention salary--in fact, they're the ones who should be transparent about it from the start. Put it in the job posting and save everyone's time, like you said. Plus, it's an easy way to weed out companies that want to cut corners on everything (in this example, the company would save a whole $80 per week by making the candidate name a salary $2/hr less than they want to pay). I'm in a slightly different situation as a freelancer, but I rarely apply for contract jobs that don't name a salary because I assume they want to pay 1 cent a word or some ridiculously low rate.
For me, personally, I find him divisive and misogynistic. I'm still not happy about his attacks on HRC as unqualified, dragging out the primary in 2016, and calling Planned Parenthood "the establishment." I don’t like his support for anti-choice candidates and his dismissal of the non-economic factors harming society.
But those things don’t make him a non-viable candidate—we’ve elected a lot of old white men with a “my way or the highway” vibe. The biggest factor in his non-viability is his self-proclaimed socialism.
More Americans say they will vote for a woman, a gay person, a Muslim, or an atheist than a socialist. In a Gallup poll from this month, over half of all Americans say they will not vote for a socialist.
Now, Trump will try to paint the Dem nominee as a socialist regardless of who it is, but Bernie is the only one who will say "Yeah? So what?" It's a huge liability.
I heard on MSNBC that the turnout in NH yesterday was higher than 2008. If that is accurate, Bernie winning by a small percentage point while #2 and 3 are moderates tells me that the revolution is dying.
I think it’s the opposite. It was way higher in 2008.
Looks like the raw number of voters will be higher but total turnout may be lower bc the population increased.
HRC only won NH by 3,000 votes, so I have no idea how the state will vote in November.
I don't think urgent care will do much. I had the same feeling for weeks after an ear infection as an adult, and while it was annoying as hell, my doctor couldn't really do anything about it. I just had to wait it out.
Maybe try an antihistamine to dry up your sinuses?
Whether or not not happened, many of them believe that it happened.
But . . . she didn't do it.
From Snopes: "The facts are that while in North Vietnam, Fonda met with only a single group of seven U.S POWs: all seven of those POWs agreed to meet with her, no POWs were tortured for declining to meet with her (or for behaving inappropriately during the meeting), and no POWs secretly slipped Fonda messages which she turned over to the North Vietnamese. The persons named in inflammatory claims about this alleged incident have repeatedly and categorically denied the events they supposedly were part of."
"the fact is that Fonda met only seven American POWs while in North Vietnam: Edison Miller, Walter Wilber, James Padgett, David Wesley Hoffman, Kenneth James Fraser, William G. Byrns, and Edward Elias. None of those men reported her sabotaging their attempts to slip her information about themselves, and anyone other than those seven men who asserts he was 'there' and witnessed such a scene is simply not telling the truth."
Okay, now wait a minute--who voted they'll canvass for Trump if their least favorite Dem wins the nomination? I'm hoping you guys are slippery-fingered snowflakes who clicked the wrong button.
I'm definitely voting Dem in November, and I'll definitely donate to Dem candidates and I'll do something like postcards to voters from my solidly blue state--but I'm not sure I'll donate or volunteer directly for the presidential candidate. I'm very concerned about down ballot races with Bernie, so I would concentrate my energy on Senate and House races if he's the nominee.
Even after Democrats began impeachment proceedings, Mr. Giuliani continued trying to collect information from Ukrainians who he argued would prove that Mr. Trump was justified in calling for Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and the ledger.
In December, Mr. Giuliani told an associate that he briefed Mr. Trump before traveling to Budapest and Kyiv to film interviews with former Ukrainian officials. As soon as Mr. Giuliani returned from the trip, Mr. Trump reportedly asked him what he had collected. “More than you can imagine,” he replied.
Mr. Giuliani has told his associates that he played the videos of his interviews for an appreciative Mr. Trump.
sakoro, my advice would be to vote for the person you would most like to see as president. Yes, unfortunately the votes of white upper Midwesterners hold more sway than the votes of West Coast progressives in the general election, but on Super Tuesday you get to vote for the person who YOU see as the best presidential candidate.
And look, I've been there trying to game out who will appeal in Minnesota or whether a woman/gay man can win. But here's what stops me: data shows that most Americans say they will vote for a woman or gay person for president, but a whole lot of Americans don't think their neighbors would. By voting based on our assumptions of who others will support, we're actually creating a less diverse, less representative system.
As long as you're Vote Blue No Matter Who in November, I say vote for your preferred candidate in the primary.