Yeah, the last time I checked there were a couple different running theories. I hadn’t heard there were more issues separate from the drop fires. But, I was never a fan of sig in the first place. So I haven’t been following it too closely. From what I remember it just seemed like the gun was a Frankensteined together money grab.
I hadn’t heard that one. The theory I’ve heard most was that they recycled a previous trigger from a different pistol but left out a drop safety mechanism when they changed it to a stricker instead of a hammer system.
It’s weird that you keep saying only “class” when you mean both class and race.
Up until very recent history class and race were inseparable constructs. Even now you could legitimately argue that even the wealthiest black members of society are not truly part of the ruling class in western society.
During the time periods and activities we were discussing assuming that race is part of class is perfectly reasonable. Specifically when it comes to dress codes class is going to be more of the focus.
A lot of golf courses used to be mens only, and the ones who did let women on the field had strict dress codes. Going as far back to Victorian times women had to have specific Golf dresses, corsets, crinolines, bustles, and multiple petticoats.
So a lot of it is based on social mores surrounding both class and sex. Even after dress codes loosened in the modern age, the culture of golf tends to be immersed in the social normative of the upper class.
Personally I actually think class has more to do with it than sexism in general. For example the first professional woman to play golf in slacks was in 1933, while the first black professional golfer was allowed in the PGA in 1967.
Then again the dynamics between social norms in sex and class are dynamic and inseparable.
It’s all relative, most cars from +50 years ago were lucky to make it a 100k miles before needing a major overhaul or just giving out completely. Even in the 80s the average person would be buying a new car every 3-4 years.
Yeah, it’s a bit of a survivor ship bias, most of the cars from the 70s that are still surviving have even lower mileage on them. A lot of classic cars that are still around were ones that people put in barns after driving them 20k-30k miles. Most of the ones that were actually driven around and used died a long time ago.
A lot of those low milage classics are basically just show cars, where the owners cart them around in trailers so they can keep the milage low.
I’m sure most are under the average usage, but even if the car was driven 1/3 as much as the average car it would have over twice the miles.
Not for older cars. Most cars from the 70s would be retired or require a major overhaul by 100k miles.
New cars just last soo much longer than they used to. That’s a major reason when I was younger Japanese cars started to eat American car manufacturers’ market share. Seeing a Nissan maxima last 150k miles without needing any work just spoke for itself when you were used to buying a new car every 3-4 years.
Or they are a Sig Sauer P320… Which is of good quality but poor design.
Idk, we are supposedly made in their image… I often engage in behavior that I know is not good for my mental or physical health beforehand. Maybe God is just a bit of a messy bitch, just like me.
Christ, I thought you said you were done? Did we manage to find some spare time in your busy work schedule?
But it also doesn’t make those examples irrelevant. If the question is whether age bias exists or can affect people in hiring and employment, you don’t need to prove that literally every employer is doing it. You need to establish that it happens often enough, and in circumstances important enough, to have a meaningful effect.
Things you haven’t done?
why someone is unemployed, how long they’ve been looking, whether they’ve stopped looking altogether, whether they’re underemployed, whether they’re being passed over for jobs they’re qualified for, or whether they’ve had to accept worse jobs than they otherwise would have.
Things that apply to all age brackets of the unemployed?
Someone can technically be employed while still experiencing age-related disadvantages in hiring, promotions, layoffs, compensation, career progression, etc. And someone who gets discouraged and leaves the labor force doesn’t necessarily show up as “unemployed” in the way you’re implying.
Are any of those relevant to my rebuttal of your claim? Do they not apply to any other age bracket?
Third, saying “it doesn’t mean it affects you personally” is kind of beside the point unless the original argument was specifically claiming that every person in that age group is personally experiencing discrimination. Obviously an aggregate pattern doesn’t mean every individual experiences it. The existence of racial discrimination, sex discrimination, disability discrimination, or any other form of discrimination doesn’t mean every person in the relevant group has personally encountered it either.
Your original statement was about you personally experiencing discrimination because of your age.
“I’m seeing evidence that age can be a disadvantage in certain employment situations,” responding with “but your age group has low unemployment” doesn’t really address the claim.
Another straw man argument. That’s not the inverse of my rebuttal.
“older workers can face age-related barriers in the labor market.”
That was not your original statement.
“There are a couple examples, therefore everyone is discriminating against older workers.” That would obviously be an overreach. I’m saying that the existence and significance of age bias can’t really be dismissed just because the overall unemployment rate for an age bracket happens to be low.
No you claimed that you were experiencing unemployment and that it was due to ageism.
Even if you find some cases of bias, it doesn’t mean that it’s widespread, nor does it mean it affects you personally. Especially considering that your age bracket still has the lowest unemployment numbers.
only a simulation and now I am done. Good day.
I bet you need to conserve your energy to really handle being unemployed all day.
Says the person who didn’t know the unemployment rate included people looking for jobs…
What you want to look at is at people who are looking for a job
This you?
Again, in this scenario you are making a claim. I am not making the claim that ageism does not exist. You are claiming it is the reason for your unemployment. My rebuttal is that the available data surrounding unemployment does not substantiate that.
If I claimed ageism does not exist, it would be a falsifiable statement. You could give any example of ageism. However if I claimed ageism exists, it just isn’t why you can’t find a job, how would we test falsibility? How could I observe the reason why you are unemployed?
think you’re repeating things you don’t understand yet.
I think you are forgetting who originally made a claim?
Yeah, they are usually very good communicators and media savvy. Which is still very important for the field of science, but they’re rarely an authority in their own fields of study.
The burden of evidence belongs to the person making a claim. I cannot provide evidence to prove a negative. If you are claiming ageism exists and is the actual reason you cannot find a job then you must provide the evidence to support that claim.
If I disagree with it, then I would offer an argument challenging the strength of that evidence, just how I’ve already done.
Say you went fishing and caught a new type of fish never before seen by humans. How would I provide proof you did not?
Only a moron or a dishonest debater would look back and not acknowledge the destruction of millions of steel, coal, manufacturing, furniture making, and textile industry jobs, the decline of unions, the shifting of tax burdens, or the elimination of public support.
Which they at least got to take part in before they voted for the people who destroyed it. They also benefited from the largest growth in wealth in American history. “Baby boomers hold approximately 51.6% of total U.S. household wealth, controlling over $85 trillion. Despite making up roughly 20% of the population, they possess an outsize share of assets compared to younger generations”
yeah… you are not seriously engging in search of truth. you are trolling.
Just because I don’t agree with you means I am trolling?
you will continue to find fault with every study, statistic or fact finding
The statistics you have posted to support your argument were very easy to criticize. Are my rebuttals incorrect, am I trying to be dishonest, or do you just not agree with me?
https://generations.asaging.org/older-workers-50-year-high-unemployment-gap/
Again, this is a study conducted by a lobbying group for older people. Besides that this is an extremely short term study that’s evaluating a 6 month period after a pandemic, and there has since been a recovery to the unemployment of older workers. They were dismissed more often because they were the largest earners and the companies were scrambling to cut cost.
Again… A lobbying group for retirement aged workers. One that at least leaves the question open and doesn’t make an absolute claim that ageism is the reason. “Some of the explanation for the difference is that older people are less malleable – they are fully formed human beings with a specific skill set – and more difficult to fit into existing slots. Another part of the explanation may be age discrimination. Employers worry whether older people can learn new skills and they are not sure how long they will stay. Age discrimination laws may also work against older job seekers; it is illegal to lay off on the basis of age, so employers may just avoid hiring older workers in the first place.”
It’s enough of an issue that there’s a law against it and a lot of people say it happens.
A law that was passed in 1967… When the largest voting block in history was starting to reach the age they wanted to protect.
I don’t doubt that it happens, I’m sure older people face a lot of challenges in the work place. I just don’t think that the data we currently have substantiates the claim that they are less hireable. Even if there was evidence to support that it would be hard to prove if they were discriminated against because of their actual age, or if it is because companies want to exploit young workers for less pay than a more experienced candidate would require.
researchers, legislators and job seekers to say that ageism exists
Or… There are biases and alterior motivations that lead them to make those claims.
suggest if you are going to go against the prevailing winds of evidence, you find some studies that shows that age discrimination in employment does NOT exist.
Ah yes, Prove something doesnt exist. I’ll do that right after I prove God doesn’t exist…that’s not how science works my guy.
I included genx because some consider starting in 1960 or 1961, which would make them eligible for retirement.
Note that there are many boomers who are poor and are working because they have no choice. Contrary to popular belief, most jobs were not that cushy over the last 50 to 60 years. pensions were steadily whacked, jobs were sent offshore. Maybe consider listening to the Billy Joel song called “Allentown”.
Yes, but compared to other generations they are doing much better.
Gen X is cynical and never believed they were going to get retirement anyway precisely because they watched what happened to the generation before them.
Lol, what? They watched their parents sell a home they bought for 10k for 400k and they lost all hope?
Lawyer submitting a picture of himself as evidence. “Defending this deceptive marketing is my job your honor. Am I not an American?”