Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

madokie

(51,076 posts)

17. A few things we have to get right moving toward the future

Reply to EL34x4 (Original post)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 09:18 AM

Sep 2017

Income inequity, the press and paper ballots, hand counted

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

17 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

To understand rising inequality, consider the janitors at Kodak and Apple, then and now [View all] EL34x4 Sep 2017 OP

Right. elleng Sep 2017 #1

Nobody will ever read this article on the economy group. EL34x4 Sep 2017 #2

But I do. elleng Sep 2017 #3

I now see you posted it over there. EL34x4 Sep 2017 #4

DURec leftstreet Sep 2017 #5

K&R demmiblue Sep 2017 #6

I've often thought that unless its remote work, contract labor should be illegal. white_wolf Sep 2017 #7

It is actually worse than "core competence" lapfog_1 Sep 2017 #8

My old company bought another company, transferred some of its best designer and bettyellen Sep 2017 #11

Not just janitors at Kodak JustAnotherGen Sep 2017 #9

I work for a company too that used to be the same. Until they were acquired, the benefits smirkymonkey Sep 2017 #10

Microsoft too lapfog_1 Sep 2017 #12

When I graduated from University JustAnotherGen Sep 2017 #14

Ms. Ramos may need welfare to survive. tecelote Sep 2017 #13

In California, Ms. Ramos undoubtedly qualifies for many forms of assistance. EL34x4 Sep 2017 #15

What are the Democrats doing to address this issue? alarimer Sep 2017 #16

A few things we have to get right moving toward the future madokie Sep 2017 #17

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»To understand rising ineq...»Reply #17