Here are links to some posts on the other ‘Safe-for-Work’ Blog.
In a couple of more recent posts, I wrote about it is necessary to be a multi-millionaire to enjoy the type of lifestyle security which was once seen as normal by the average middle-class families in this country. Another post talked about how financialism has pushed up the cost of housing in many western countries to beyond the reach of the average person. This rapid increase in housing costs in those countries, during an era of stagnant median incomes, is a deliberate choice since similar increases have not occurred in other developed countries that are less enthusiastic about implementing financialism.
Now apply that concept to attempts at gun control in USA. Do you really think that passing laws restricting scary-looking guns is going to change the overall downward trajectory for the average person in USA? Is it going to provide them with freedom from worrying about medical bills, housing costs, student loans etc? would those laws provide them with stable, well-paying jobs or livelihoods? Is it going to change how American social system treats its non-rich members? To summarize, creating socio-economic conditions similar to third-world countries will replicate the other less savory statistics from those countries.
How come the majority of self-anointed victims of discrimination and micro-aggressions are white women? And not just any white woman- but the kind who has a desk job. While non-white women are increasingly claiming victimhood, they are almost always also from the desk job class. Are working class women (white and non-white) largely immune from discrimination and micro-aggressions? Why don’t working class women demand “safe-spaces” like their desk top job brethren? Isn’t it interesting that the desk job class keep on inventing new forms of victimhood?
Increasingly, decisions about which products to stock were made by a bunch of MBAs and other assorted bottom-feeders in their ‘headquarters’. They had no interest in feedback from their employees who understood the local markets and customers far better than the greedy assholes at HQ. To make matters worse, they spent all of their short-term financial gains on hefty bonuses rather than updating their stores. You can guess how this ended. After about a decade of such bold and innovative changes in management style, a large chain which was once a household name in this part of the country went under.