Amway reviews reddit
Because it is a pyramid system, it is seen as a scam. Not from selling the product, but rather from enticing additional people to become participants in the programme...
Amway is not a scam, according to CMV.
I've done a great deal of reading on the subject, and I'm still not convinced. I feel I have some valid issues that, despite much research, have not yet been refuted.
Yes, money is made from motivational content by those in positions of authority. What's the difference between that and musicians generating money off of their tunes, you might wonder. They are still offering a service in this capacity.
If the higher-ups receive a portion of their revenue from the sale of motivational content, they are still at the top of their respective organisations' corporate ladders. As a result, even if the motivational content did not generate additional cash, they would still make a substantial amount of money. How can this be considered a scam?
Would the Amway business, on its own, still be called a scam if the selling of motivating content were to be discontinued? Isn't it essentially a referral programme in disguise?
Greetings, CMV subscribers! Here's something from your moderators as a footnote. We just want to bring your attention back to a handful of important points. First and foremost, please remember to review our ground rules. Instead of downvoting a remark that contains a broken link, you could consider reporting the comment.................. Downvotes, on the other hand, have no effect on people's opinions! If you are considering submitting a CMV on your own, we recommend that you first review our wiki of frequently asked questions. Do you have any questions or concerns? Please do not hesitate to contact us. Best of luck with your CMVing!
CMV: All citizens of the United States should be required to serve in the public sector for a specified period of time.
When people reach a particular age in nations such as Finland, Denmark, Norway, and Greece, they are forced to serve in the military for a period of time, with those who oppose having the choice to work in the civilian public sector instead. Both military service and public service in the United States are today totally voluntary in nature. Although I believe that the United States should reestablish conscription, I feel that it should be used primarily for the sake of public service, with military duty serving as a minority option rather than the norm.
A representation of how the system would look
Everyone, male or female, would be required to register for duty when they reach the age of eighteen, in the same manner as the current Selective Service system. The only people who would be exempt from this rule would be those who are seriously handicapped or incompetent. In some cases, duty could be deferred for a reasonable amount of time due to justifiable reasons (e.g., family circumstances, medical leave, college education that could then be applied in the service). The length of the programme would most likely vary depending on the job to which the participant was assigned, but it would be lengthy enough for participants to develop valuable job skills while also actively contributing to the completion of whatever project they were assigned.
The service itself may be a hybrid of the present Americorps and the Public Works Administration from the 1930s, with a primary focus on upgrading all elements of the United States' deteriorating infrastructure, both through repair and modernization, and a secondary focus on disaster relief. A wide range of skilled and semi-skilled occupations would be available to citizens, with government lifers serving as a source of continuity across the system. We might even be able to incorporate the National Endowment for the Arts into the programme, which would allow us to fund a smaller number of creative roles.
Those who want to pursue a military career can do so, though there will almost certainly be a limit on the number of people who can do so because we don't want to lose the benefits of having an all-volunteer military and because the last thing the United States needs is for its military budget to be inflated even further.
Pros:
The physical infrastructure in the United States is both insufficient and in disrepair, resulting in a high rate of accidents. In addition to repairing bridges and bringing high-speed internet to underserved regions, this programme would also modernise pipelines that are more than 150 years old in order to promote public health.
Job training is provided. The system provides those who don't know what they want to do after high school with a low-risk way to explore their options, and those who have a college degree don't have to worry about landing their first job because they can gain experience through the system and then move on to the public sector if they so choose.
Job generation on an ongoing basis. Infrastructure projects take a long time to complete, and this system will necessitate the hiring of a wide range of people in order to see these projects through to the end.
Cons and counter-arguments:
Cost. The programme, while expensive, would be an investment in the country, akin to the WPA/PWA programmes of the New Deal Era in the 1930s.
Resistance in the open. If the programme is properly promoted, this is a problem that can be resolved.
Inefficiency on the part of the government. While it is true that it will cost more money to build a power plant (for example) this way, if the project were completed by a private party, there would still be excess spending; we would simply refer to it as profit, and the money would go into the pockets of the wealthy rather than the general public.
It's socialism all the way!! So, what the fuck is going on? Infrastructure should be nationalised because it is a public good that belongs to all of us.
Any good, fact-based argument has the potential to sway my mind, including disputing my counter-arguments to the disadvantages I've mentioned or pointing forth other disadvantages. So, congratulations, CMV!
CMV: Rude servers should not be expected to accept tips.
I'm sure I'll regret not going with a throwaway for this one, but here we are.
For the sake of clarification, I am not an American, and the culture of tipping in the United States is what I am focusing on here. In the United Kingdom, there is a tipping culture, but because we earn a standard minimum salary, the 'anticipated' tip is often around 10%. For the past 10 years, I have worked in the hospitality sector as a waitress/bartender, and during that time, I have received a modest number of tips - but only in reaction to exceptional or extra attentive service.
I visited the United States for a few months a few years ago and was instantly struck by how different the tipping culture is there from here. As much as I love the concept of tipping heavily after your first round of drinks in order to receive improved treatment, I don't understand why you should expect to be ignored if your wallet doesn't have an extra ten bucks to spare at the beginning of your night.
The waitresses were extremely nasty throughout the meal, and they continued to make snide remarks at the conclusion when they felt they hadn't been tipped enough, which I found to be ridiculous. In the United Kingdom, if you're unpleasant or make a mistake, you shouldn't expect to get tipped. Recognize that this is unlikely to be the norm, and that there are probably a large number of servers out there who work with the inherent shittiness of garbage wages that are subsidised by tips, but surely the goal here is to behave in a professional manner regardless of whether or not you can expect a payout to come your way.
I'm curious to hear other people's thoughts on this. Simply put, I don't believe there are many other situations outside of the service sector in which I, as a waitress, could act rudely toward a customer all night and expect to be compensated for it.
cmv: The gender of a person does not change throughout the day.
In my mind, the term "genderfluid" meant that someone was experimenting with gender, not that they felt and wanted to be referred to as different genders at different times of the day.
"On any given day, I will most likely transition from masculine to androgynous, then feminine to butch, before returning to masculine. When I'm with someone, it can have an impact on how I present and how I feel. And other times, I am who I am, regardless of who I am interacting with at any one time.""
Every individual is extraordinarily complex and one-of-a-kind. No one can be completely contained within any box. We utilise 'boxes' to order and organise an extraordinarily complicated world, as well as to communicate effectively with one another.
What this individual is describing in this article is a normal human experience, or, to put it another way, it is their own personal personality.
"When it comes to handling genderfluid people, there are no quick fixes or easy solutions. The best line of action is just to ask them what they would prefer to be addressed as, and then to attempt to remember to address them as such."
When? I'm not sure how often I should ask this question.
"Short-haired, masculine-styled ladies who enter a room as if they are the only ones in it are known as butch women. Transwomen can be seen doing this when they meticulously apply makeup, dress in feminine apparel, and enter a room in the hopes that people will notice them. And you can see that when some homosexual guys dress sharp and dapper, aren't afraid to show off their cheerful personality, and enter a place loud and unafraid to show off their wealth and success. Gender is present in everything we believe about ourselves and demonstrate to the rest of the world."
What do you mean, a personality?
"I've learnt to refrain from referring to myself as if I were apologising for something. "Don't even bother looking at my clothes," I'd tell a female friend when I ran into her. My excuse was that I had "just thrown something on this morning" since I was immediately ashamed that I was still in jeans and hadn't put on makeup."
Almost every lady in history has said this. Being a woman does not imply that you must dress in a frock and apply makeup. It does not make you any less of a woman if you are wearing jeans and no make-up. This author is correct in stating that we should not be required to apologise for not wearing makeup. However, being 'beautiful' at times and 'casual' at other times does not imply that we are "genderfluid."
If it isn't about personality, I am completely baffled by what this individual is talking about. I'm curious as to how homogeneous they regard literally everyone else to be in order to believe that they are in some way so fundamentally different from everyone else that they must build a new box and set of rules for themselves in society.
In the event that gender is innate and (most likely) determined by biological causes, how can changes in gender during the day be considered valid?
I don't believe that is the case. People from CMV
It would be great to hear from anyone who has a different point of view on the premise of this piece. For example, it is not possible for gender differences to exist throughout the day. I'm aware that transgenderism is a fascinating issue, but I'm particularly interested in discussing this particular viewpoint today.
EDIT 2: To be clear, I'm not referring to "respecting" someone's wish that they be addressed as male or female, or anything like that. What I find difficult to comprehend is how we can explain gender-fluidity if we believe that gender is genetically determined. Those who identify as trans believe gender is something we are born with rather than something we select, much like sexuality is something we may choose or not choose.
0 comments: