530
HP CEO: You're 'bad investment' if you don't buy HP supplies
(www.theregister.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2024
530 points (97.0% liked)
Technology
59598 readers
4592 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Seems like slightly more than half of American workers (56%) participate in a "workplace retirement plan" which I don't know the definition of. Pension or 401k if I had to guess.
Why research, post a statistical number, and completely abandon reading anything else in the article for context? Stating a number that you have no idea what it's defining? You're spreading misinformation for some weird "I was right" gotcha comment. The literal next line where you got 56% from,
This includes all types of employment, for just private it's a measly 11%. State and local government employees bump up all of the stats. Nice little tidbit at the end: "A pension plan is a traditional or hybrid defined benefit plan. In 2022 forty one percent of workers in private-sector pension plans were in plans that were closed to new entrants.
How does this vary from previous years? What are the different types of definitions and actual "benefits" that the employee may see. What are the differences in private and public sector "retirement plans" (or contribution vs defined benefits). I've been reading through the BLS.gov website in regards to all of this and it's one sad fact after another. But sure, put a healthy untrue spin on it to win some internet points while completely missing the context, skewed facts have never caused any harm.
Yeah, I stopped researching it. Perhaps we should go back to the more measured approach from earlier in the thread.
Well instead of forming emotional opinions we can try an educated opinion next? You really do yourself a disservice by saying you have no idea what you're talking about.
I understand your point, and I would typically do more research, however the people I was replying to have seemingly abandoned the thread after making their kind of insane statements, and made even less effort than I did to prove their point.
There's not much reason to drag this out now. I'd rather spend my time on threads with more purpose, or just not online at all. :-)
Man, I want to appreciate your attitude but you're just wrong and possibly the worse type of person to be on social media. I'm replying to you (me a commenter), they made a factual statement and you provided false statistics which I replied to. It doesn't matter "Who", unless this is just a competition to you versus "Them". Please run off to things with more purpose like "Threads" lol. Lemmy doesn't need more disinformation or uneducated guesses from bottom feeders who don't care about anything but their imaginary pensions.
Sure, I should either agree to the death of everyone who ever invested any money into anything, or I should spend my time researching exactly how many people that is.