American Politics Thread VI: Can't We All Just Get Along?

[Genivaria]

The natural state of existence is working for a wage? Don't be ridiculous.
We produce far more with our modern technology than our ancestors could've dreamed of and yet we throw away more food every year in the United States than we consume simply because it's not profitable to give it to the hungry.
We don't NEED the profit motive, in fact we are being restrained by it.

No, but the natural state of our existence is to work. The problem with wage labor is that it is exploitative, but labor will exist under communism.

Oh yes labor will still exist, but my point being that requiring every individual to labor 9 to 5 simply to exist is grossly inefficient and unnecessary, perhaps that used to be necessary but the level of automation and mechanization we've reached means that the production of the most basic needs like food and shelter can be handled easily with just a few people, providing the masses with food and shelter.
Instead we reserve such products when noone can afford them until they but either be thrown away, left abandoned, or cost millions to maintain empty homes.

I'm not saying that no labor will exist but the desperate grind to exist is simply not necessary.

[Page]

The natural state of existence is working for a wage? Don't be ridiculous.
We produce far more with our modern technology than our ancestors could've dreamed of and yet we throw away more food every year in the United States than we consume simply because it's not profitable to give it to the hungry.
We don't NEED the profit motive, in fact we are being restrained by it.

No, but the natural state of our existence is to work. The problem with wage labor is that it is exploitative, but labor will exist under communism.

Humans being a species that survived and thrived on intelligence and innovation, I would argue it is our natural state to strive to minimize work. There will always be some work to be done but if we got rid of the bullshit jobs and if everyone pitched in equally to the necessary jobs, we could probably have 12 hour work weeks now absent technological advances which will reduce it even further.

[Tarsonis]

No, but the natural state of our existence is to work. The problem with wage labor is that it is exploitative, but labor will exist under communism.

Oh yes labor will still exist, but my point being that requiring every individual to labor 9 to 5 simply to exist is grossly inefficient and unnecessary, perhaps that used to be necessary but the level of automation and mechanization we've reached means that the production of the most basic needs like food and shelter can be handled easily with just a few people, providing the masses with food and shelter.
Instead we reserve such products when noone can afford them until they but either be thrown away, left abandoned, or cost millions to maintain empty homes.

I'm not saying that no labor will exist but the desperate grind to exist is simply not necessary.

your ability to miss the point is truly phenomenal

[Genivaria]

Oh yes labor will still exist, but my point being that requiring every individual to labor 9 to 5 simply to exist is grossly inefficient and unnecessary, perhaps that used to be necessary but the level of automation and mechanization we've reached means that the production of the most basic needs like food and shelter can be handled easily with just a few people, providing the masses with food and shelter.
Instead we reserve such products when noone can afford them until they but either be thrown away, left abandoned, or cost millions to maintain empty homes.

I'm not saying that no labor will exist but the desperate grind to exist is simply not necessary.

your ability to miss the point is truly phenomenal

Is your snark supposed to be a point?

[Thermodolia]

No, but the natural state of our existence is to work. The problem with wage labor is that it is exploitative, but labor will exist under communism.

Humans being a species that survived and thrived on intelligence and innovation, I would argue it is our natural state to strive to minimize work. There will always be some work to be done but if we got rid of the bullshit jobs and if everyone pitched in equally to the necessary jobs, we could probably have 12 hour work weeks now absent technological advances which will reduce it even further.

The problem is that people will not just “pitch in” for the “good of humanity”. There will have to be some sort of force or incentive there.

---

In other news a Florida appeals court has ruled in favor of DeSantis

[Odreria]

No, but the natural state of our existence is to work. The problem with wage labor is that it is exploitative, but labor will exist under communism.

Oh yes labor will still exist, but my point being that requiring every individual to labor 9 to 5 simply to exist is grossly inefficient and unnecessary, perhaps that used to be necessary but the level of automation and mechanization we've reached means that the production of the most basic needs like food and shelter can be handled easily with just a few people, providing the masses with food and shelter.
Instead we reserve such products when noone can afford them until they but either be thrown away, left abandoned, or cost millions to maintain empty homes.

I'm not saying that no labor will exist but the desperate grind to exist is simply not necessary.

the earth spins
on its axis
one man struggles
while another relaxes

[Merrill]

Private charity. When people are allowed by their overlords to keep more of their income, they are more able to choose to voluntarily share, and care for their neighbors. I believe in humanity. People will be good, given the opportunity.

Clearly you've been living under a rock for the last year and a half then. When people have been going out of their way to invent reasons why they should be allowed to fuck over their neighbours rather than have to put a bit of cloth over their face or stand six feet apart from people in the grocery store.

Also dressing up Trickle Down Economics with wishy-washy language about altruism doesn't make it less bullshit.

People don't want to wear the masks because they were lied to. Anything other than a N-95 mask doesn't block the virus. We are being ordered to impede our breathing to no benefit. Also, the so called experts said that once people were vaccinated, the mask mandate would end. Just another lie...

[Genivaria]

Clearly you've been living under a rock for the last year and a half then. When people have been going out of their way to invent reasons why they should be allowed to fuck over their neighbours rather than have to put a bit of cloth over their face or stand six feet apart from people in the grocery store.

Also dressing up Trickle Down Economics with wishy-washy language about altruism doesn't make it less bullshit.

People don't want to wear the masks because they were lied to. Anything other than a N-95 mask doesn't block the virus. We are being ordered to impede our breathing to no benefit. Also, the so called experts said that once people were vaccinated, the mask mandate would end. Just another lie...

Do not post Covid misinformation. Friendly warning.
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=482474

[Merrill]

Private charity. When people are allowed by their overlords to keep more of their income, they are more able to choose to voluntarily share, and care for their neighbors. I believe in humanity. People will be good, given the opportunity.

I'm usually not responding to you in this recent discussions because it would lead to very lengthy discussion which I don't really have the time to get involved in right now (it's Fête de l'Humanité this week-end after all, french commies are busy busy).

But there is one fact from recent politics that proves you very wrong. France used to have a wealth tax, called "ISF", that all people with capital above a certain level had to pay. But donations to charities were deductible from those tax, at 66% (if you donate 1000€ you pay 660€ euro less in taxes). When Macron arrived into power, faithful to his social class of ultra-rich, one of the first thing he did was abolish ISF. Not only that costed the state about 4-5 billions euros a year but the result of it was... a sudden, strong drop in how much the ultra-rich gave to various charities, making some of them suddenly almost dry.

Giving more money to the rich actually made them more selfish. They gave to charity when 2/3 of the money came from the state, and it allowed to them to parade saying "see I gave lots of money to charity", but the day they couldn't deduct the 2/3 of it from their ISF, even if they actually had more money available, they forgot about charity altogether.

There are many other reasons for which relying on charity is a very, very bad idea, but the "allow rich people to be richer and they'll give more" is just factually wrong - if you want the rich to give away, you've to "push" them into doing it. Or even better take "their" money, because it never was theirs to start, but the one they stole from their workers/tenants/...

Wow, your fundamental assumptions are backwards: Its not the States' money! They didn't earn it, they took it from those who did.

If your people are unwilling to help without being compelled, you have a crap culture. Maybe France shouldn't have rejected Christianity over the last hundred years.

Also, don't rely on the rich. Increase the economy, raise prosperity, and the middle class, especially those who use to be poor, will band together and help.

[The Black Forrest]

Clearly you've been living under a rock for the last year and a half then. When people have been going out of their way to invent reasons why they should be allowed to fuck over their neighbours rather than have to put a bit of cloth over their face or stand six feet apart from people in the grocery store.

Also dressing up Trickle Down Economics with wishy-washy language about altruism doesn't make it less bullshit.

People don't want to wear the masks because they were lied to. Anything other than a N-95 mask doesn't block the virus. We are being ordered to impede our breathing to no benefit. Also, the so called experts said that once people were vaccinated, the mask mandate would end. Just another lie...

Oh ffs.

Who are your “experts”

Seriously; unless it’s 100 percent its a lie?

Impede your breathing? I wear them all the time and I am classified as asthmatic. Is it uncomfortable at times sure. Is it going to kill you? Hardly.

Just wear the damn mask while out in public.

[Shrillland]

Clearly you've been living under a rock for the last year and a half then. When people have been going out of their way to invent reasons why they should be allowed to fuck over their neighbours rather than have to put a bit of cloth over their face or stand six feet apart from people in the grocery store.

Also dressing up Trickle Down Economics with wishy-washy language about altruism doesn't make it less bullshit.

People don't want to wear the masks because they were lied to. Anything other than a N-95 mask doesn't block the virus. We are being ordered to impede our breathing to no benefit. Also, the so called experts said that once people were vaccinated, the mask mandate would end. Just another lie...

No, Merrill, it's changing guidance for changing conditions. Scientists are not politicians, and we must not hold them to the same standard of sticking to principles even in the advent of facts. As facts change, guidance changes.

[Merrill]

Dude its gonna be so fun at work the next few days/weeks I'm sure with the new federal vaccine mandate for businesses with over 100 employees. My store alone has 150-200 employees, its gonna be glorious hearing all the bitching and whining from the anti-vaxxers at work while I try not to just laugh.

So, you are just a bully, but you are not brave enough to oppress your co-workers yourself, so you outsource it to the government. Such a great, moral, kind human being you are!

[Vassenor]

Dude its gonna be so fun at work the next few days/weeks I'm sure with the new federal vaccine mandate for businesses with over 100 employees. My store alone has 150-200 employees, its gonna be glorious hearing all the bitching and whining from the anti-vaxxers at work while I try not to just laugh.

So, you are just a bully, but you are not brave enough to oppress your co-workers yourself, so you outsource it to the government. Such a great, moral, kind human being you are!

How are vaccines oppression?

[The Alma Mater]

Clearly you've been living under a rock for the last year and a half then. When people have been going out of their way to invent reasons why they should be allowed to fuck over their neighbours rather than have to put a bit of cloth over their face or stand six feet apart from people in the grocery store.

Also dressing up Trickle Down Economics with wishy-washy language about altruism doesn't make it less bullshit.

People don't want to wear the masks because they were lied to. Anything other than a N-95 mask doesn't block the virus. We are being ordered to impede our breathing to no benefit. Also, the so called experts said that once people were vaccinated, the mask mandate would end. Just another lie...

I love the irony of you making a post full of lies while complaining you were lied to.
*tips hat*. Good comedy.

[Merrill]

If the wealthy would like to reduce the welfare burden perhaps they could start paying their employees enough to not require public assistance.

Not to put to fine a point on it, but welfare isn't taking rich people's money and giving it to poor people, it's rich companies taking money from average tax payers to subsidize their own labor forces.

The rich are taking money off you to subsidize their own labor while trying to tell you that it's the poor taking your money. And you're fucking falling for it.

It's not even entirely about saving themselves a buck at your expense, but also literally keeping you dependent. The rich, not the welfare system itself which actually strives to balance out the effects of concentrating wealth at the top, benefit (in the short term at least) from enforcing poverty.

Christopher “Sandy” Jencks, the Malcolm Wiener Professor of Social Policy at HKS, believes that the past 30 years of rising American inequality can be attributed to three key factors:

The decline in jobs and employment rates for less-skilled workers, which has increased the number of households with children but no male breadwinner.
The demand for college graduates outpacing the pool of job candidates, adding to the gap between the middle class and upper-middle class.
The share of income gains flowing to the top 1 percent of earners doubling as a result of deregulation, globalization, and speculation in the financial services industry.

The U.S. government does “considerably less” than comparable democracies to even out disposable family incomes, Jencks says. And current state and local tax policies “actually increase income inequality.”

“All the costs and risks of capitalism seem to have been shifted largely to those who work rather than those who invest,” he said.

Compounding the economic imbalance is the unlikely prospect that those at the bottom can ever improve their lot.

“We have some of the lowest rates of upward mobility of any developed country in the world,” said Nathaniel Hendren, an associate professor of economics at FAS who has studied intergenerational mobility and how inequality transmits across generations.
...
For children in parts of the Midwest, the Northeast, and the West, upward mobility rates are high. But in the South and portions of the Rust Belt, rates are very low. For example, a child born in Iowa into a household making less than $25,000 a year has an 18 percent chance to move into the upper 20 percent of income strata over a lifetime. But a child born in Atlanta or Charlotte, N.C., has only a 4 percent chance of moving up, their study found.
...
Rivkin says that the pressures of globalization and technological change and the weakening of labor unions have had a major impact. But he disagrees that political favoritism toward business interests and away from ordinary citizens is the primary reason for burgeoning inequality. Rather, he says that sustained underinvestment by government and business in “the commons” — the institutions and services that offer wide community benefits, like schools and roads — has been especially detrimental.
...
The surging power of the very wealthy in America now rivals levels last seen in the Gilded Age of the late 19th century, analysts say. One difference, however, is that the grotesque chasm between that era’s robber barons and tenement dwellers led to major social and policy reforms that are still with us, including labor rights, women’s suffrage, and federal regulatory agencies to oversee trade, banking, food, and drugs.

Hendren said there’s no less chance today of rising or falling along the income spectrum than there was 25 years ago. “The chances of moving up or down the ladder are the same,” he said, “but the way we think about inequality is that the rungs on the ladder have gotten wider. The difference between being at the top versus the bottom of the income distribution is wider, so the consequences of being born to a poor family in dollar terms are wider.”
...
The widening income gap also has fueled a class-based social disconnect that has produced inequitable educational results. “Now, your family income matters more than your own abilities in terms of whether you complete college,” said Robert Putnam, the Peter and Isabel Malkin Professor of Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School (HKS). “Smart poor kids are less likely to graduate from college now than dumb rich kids. That’s not because of the schools, that’s because of all the advantages that are available to rich kids.”
...
Partisan gridlock in Washington, D.C., has diminished the effectiveness of government — perhaps the most essential and powerful tool for addressing inequality and citizens’ needs. By adopting a political narrative that government should not and cannot effectively solve problems, legislative inaction results in policy inaction.

“It’s definitely been a strategy” to justify starving government of resources, which in turn weakens it and makes it less attractive as a tool to accomplish big things, said Skocpol. “In an everybody-for-themselves situation, it is the better-educated and the wealthy who can protect themselves.”

Increasing money at the top helps perpetuate inequality, not magically allow the rich to disperse it at will.

Heterogeneity in the marginal propensity to consume (MPC) has substantial implications for government fiscal policy when it means, as this study finds, that aggregate consumption would be higher if income were transferred from high-wealth to low-wealth households. The conclusion here that the MPC is lower at higher wealth quintiles further suggests that low-wealth households cannot smooth consumption as much as high-wealth households do. Low-wealth households’ consumption therefore responds more to changes in income than does that of wealthy households, which smooth consumption so that even if income varies significantly over the life cycle, consumption is less variable from year to year. This suggests that an increase in income inequality increases wealth inequality while likely reducing aggregate consumption, with important implications for economic growth.

You want more economic growth and activity, don't give money to people who already have it, give it to people who don't. Fucking duh.

Looked at another way, would Gina Rinehart, Anthony Pratt or Harry Triguboff increase their spending over and above their current consumption patterns if their income had a one off boost of $100m? The answer is an overwhelming no. More likely the extra $100m would merely find its way into their assets and wealth. Any impact on the macro-economy as a result would be small.

An alternative is distributing the $1bn by allocating $1,000 to each of the poorest one million people via a $20 a week tax cut or benefit increase. In this scenario, there is a strong probability the vast bulk of the $1bn would be spent to improve their living standards. Low-income earners are unlikely to save or invest the extra income.

Now think of how the different distribution of the $1bn will affect the economy and jobs.

If the money finds its way to those on low incomes, there will inevitably be higher aggregate spending, more jobs and quite simply a stronger economy. And if the income distribution continues to be skewed to those on low incomes, there will be a lift in the growth potential of the economy. Unemployment would be structurally lower and there would be a self-supporting cycle of stronger activity as a result.

In most sober analyses of income distribution, no one is suggesting governments have a policy framework to crunch the rich and blindly give the money to the poor. Rather, the idea of greater income equality and a more even distribution of wealth reiterates the importance of a progressive income tax structure. It also highlights the economically sensible nature of targeted welfare assistance to those on lower incomes and a tightening of payments away from high income earners.

If you think that increased wages or public welfare spending is hindering growth, you have been bamboozled. You have fallen for a lie to be a shill to the very people draining you dry. The rich and corporations are stealing from you and you're thanking them for the privilege, shilling for the plunderers. To belabor an earlier used cliche by someone peddling this lie, you've been tapdancing in a shower of urine while being told it's a spring shower by those peeing on you and accusing the person trying to hand you an umbrella of wanting to do that.

Tell me another fairy tale about how letting the rich get richer will solve fucking anything.

I don't care if the rich get richer or not. I care about the immorality of taking someone else's property by force.

My utopia is for some of the middle class to become rich, and for the 'poor' to come up to the standard of living that use to be 'middle-class'. The way to due this is to remove the regulations and taxes that are impeding growth. Make it easier for people to start a business. Stop inflating the F***ING money supply so that workers wages aren't devalued. All the issues you are concerned with are caused by the governments, and national banks. The very institutions you want to give more power.

[Thermodolia]

Dude its gonna be so fun at work the next few days/weeks I'm sure with the new federal vaccine mandate for businesses with over 100 employees. My store alone has 150-200 employees, its gonna be glorious hearing all the bitching and whining from the anti-vaxxers at work while I try not to just laugh.

So, you are just a bully, but you are not brave enough to oppress your co-workers yourself, so you outsource it to the government. Such a great, moral, kind human being you are!

You aren’t exactly mr moral yourself dude. Especially with the whole “fuck you, I’ve got mine” attitude

[Merrill]

Private charity. When people are allowed by their overlords to keep more of their income, they are more able to choose to voluntarily share, and care for their neighbors. I believe in humanity. People will be good, given the opportunity.

You might not be old enough to remember, but that is basically the argument Reagan made for trickle-down economics, nearly half a century ago.

What actually happened was that middle income Americans went from a 62% share of aggregate income to 43% share, low income Americans went from 10% to 9%, and upper income Americans went from a 29% share to 48%.

In other words, we tried your experiment, and you were utterly, provably, demonstrably, incontrovertibly wrong. Income inequality increased, the rich got MUCH richer, the poor got poorer, and a third of the middle class was wiped out.

Your ideology is bankrupt.

I was 7 when Reagan was elected. I'm just old enough to remember the Carter economy. I remember my mom worrying about how much groceries cost, and if she was going to have to get a job, and then what would she do with us kids? I also remember the Reagan years, and how my dad's salary was more than enough for our family. We were lower middle class, and life got a LOT better. Same for everyone we knew.

[Genivaria]

You might not be old enough to remember, but that is basically the argument Reagan made for trickle-down economics, nearly half a century ago.

What actually happened was that middle income Americans went from a 62% share of aggregate income to 43% share, low income Americans went from 10% to 9%, and upper income Americans went from a 29% share to 48%.

In other words, we tried your experiment, and you were utterly, provably, demonstrably, incontrovertibly wrong. Income inequality increased, the rich got MUCH richer, the poor got poorer, and a third of the middle class was wiped out.

Your ideology is bankrupt.

I was 7 when Reagan was elected. I'm just old enough to remember the Carter economy. I remember my mom worrying about how much groceries cost, and if she was going to have to get a job, and then what would she do with us kids? I also remember the Reagan years, and how my dad's salary was more than enough for our family. We were lower middle class, and life got a LOT better. Same for everyone we knew.

This may come as a surprise for you but your personal experience doesn't invalidate the data.

[Proctopeo]

Dude its gonna be so fun at work the next few days/weeks I'm sure with the new federal vaccine mandate for businesses with over 100 employees. My store alone has 150-200 employees, its gonna be glorious hearing all the bitching and whining from the anti-vaxxers at work while I try not to just laugh.

I said this already, but the proposed rule sounds like something that'll get fucked sideways in the court system.

I'm waiting for Biden to try and "get [governors] out of the way". That's a more worrying turn of phrase than "I'm going to make OSHA do something it probably doesn't have the authority to do".

This may come as a surprise for you but your personal experience doesn't invalidate the data.

It does give him a valid reason to have his highly divergent perspective on it, however. If opinions even need a valid reason to exist, of course.

[Proctopeo]

People don't want to wear the masks because they were lied to. Anything other than a N-95 mask doesn't block the virus. We are being ordered to impede our breathing to no benefit. Also, the so called experts said that once people were vaccinated, the mask mandate would end. Just another lie...

Do not post Covid misinformation. Friendly warning.
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=482474

Wasn't the mask thing the official stance in early 2020, and then was never (publicly) corrected? I distinctly remember hearing that from... someone with authority. I don't recall if it was Fauci, the WHO, or someone else.

Anyways, I'm waiting for the Pfizer™ Twice-Daily COVID-19 Pills™ so I can crush them up and mix them with Ivermectin powder and snort the result

[The Black Forrest]

You might not be old enough to remember, but that is basically the argument Reagan made for trickle-down economics, nearly half a century ago.

What actually happened was that middle income Americans went from a 62% share of aggregate income to 43% share, low income Americans went from 10% to 9%, and upper income Americans went from a 29% share to 48%.

In other words, we tried your experiment, and you were utterly, provably, demonstrably, incontrovertibly wrong. Income inequality increased, the rich got MUCH richer, the poor got poorer, and a third of the middle class was wiped out.

Your ideology is bankrupt.

I was 7 when Reagan was elected. I'm just old enough to remember the Carter economy. I remember my mom worrying about how much groceries cost, and if she was going to have to get a job, and then what would she do with us kids? I also remember the Reagan years, and how my dad's salary was more than enough for our family. We were lower middle class, and life got a LOT better. Same for everyone we knew.

Oh St. Reagan. The funny thing? As time moves on the faults tend to disappear. You left out the great oil embargo during Carters time. Much nonsense went down like Iran. It’s a tad more complicated then “Derp. Democrats are the suxors!”. Food in general is way more expensive. It used to be the garbage fast food was the expensive naughtly pleasure. Now healthy food is the more expensive.

I remember the hard times and guess what St. Reagan started the job exporting. They called it “right-sizing” back then. When the Soviets went away. Many of us in the government (In my case the DoD) got laid off for our efforts.

It was also the start of the end for working for one company. There was a blood bath of layoffs for older workers.

Reagan was NOT a golden age.

[The Black Forrest]

Do not post Covid misinformation. Friendly warning.
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=482474

Wasn't the mask thing the official stance in early 2020, and then was never (publicly) corrected? I distinctly remember hearing that from... someone with authority. I don't recall if it was Fauci, the WHO, or someone else.

Anyways, I'm waiting for the Pfizer™ Twice-Daily COVID-19 Pills™ so I can crush them up and mix them with Ivermectin powder and snort the result

Masks were never official under 45.

[Thermodolia]

Do not post Covid misinformation. Friendly warning.
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=482474

Wasn't the mask thing the official stance in early 2020, and then was never (publicly) corrected? I distinctly remember hearing that from... someone with authority. I don't recall if it was Fauci, the WHO, or someone else.

Anyways, I'm waiting for the Pfizer™ Twice-Daily COVID-19 Pills™ so I can crush them up and mix them with Ivermectin powder and snort the result

Don’t forget the anti depressants

[Rusozak]

Do not post Covid misinformation. Friendly warning.
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=482474

Wasn't the mask thing the official stance in early 2020, and then was never (publicly) corrected? I distinctly remember hearing that from... someone with authority. I don't recall if it was Fauci, the WHO, or someone else.

Anyways, I'm waiting for the Pfizer™ Twice-Daily COVID-19 Pills™ so I can crush them up and mix them with Ivermectin powder and snort the result

The N-95 was singled out early on because the supply was low at the time and they were urging people to save the N-95 for hospital staff and first responders. Yes, there was like a month where Fauci and others were telling people not to mask up because healthcare workers needed them and the supply chain hadn't caught up yet. But for anyone who's looked at the news since May of last year, the supply chain has caught up and they quickly changed their stance now that they were readily accessible to everyone.

[Thermodolia]

Wasn't the mask thing the official stance in early 2020, and then was never (publicly) corrected? I distinctly remember hearing that from... someone with authority. I don't recall if it was Fauci, the WHO, or someone else.

Anyways, I'm waiting for the Pfizer™ Twice-Daily COVID-19 Pills™ so I can crush them up and mix them with Ivermectin powder and snort the result

The N-95 was singled out early on because the supply was low at the time and they were urging people to save the N-95 for hospital staff and first responders. Yes, there was like a month where Fauci and others were telling people not to mask up because healthcare workers needed them and the supply chain hadn't caught up yet. But for anyone who's looked at the news since May of last year, the supply chain has caught up and they quickly changed their stance now that they were readily accessible to everyone.

Hell there where a stack of 50 boxes of 10 N-95 masks each at Lowe’s the other day. Thats 500 masks just sitting in a store