531–540 of 548 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
100k euros in the uk is about £87k. That would be £77k gross wage or net of £52500 - about 40% total tax, do not excessively different to France.
The same position that got you £80-100k gross in London will only get you €40-50k gross in Paris.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Regardless of your view on labour laws I think most people agree on this. Not if the other option was China shutting down a bunch of Marriott hotels and hundreds of employees losing their jobs instead.
The parent replied to a comment as a rebuttal against the claim that France's employment laws are what you get when you give employees rights. They specially stated the false dichotomy, and made a strong argument. No one here knows if the other option has to be Marriott losing business, so you putting that out there is wrong, and ironically, again a false dichotomy.
I was responding to this point, which is specifically about the Marriott case.
>Executives dismissing a support employee—out-of-touch executives who have probably forgotten how important an ongoing income stream is for people on low or even normal incomes—just to save face in a business relationship is in my opinion unjustifiable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
China Uncensored is a horribly biased news site which is funded by the Falun Gong. Not saying that China's treatment of Falun Gong isn't terrible but China Uncensored is a pretty bad news source. I'd put it akin to some fake news sites.
> I'd put it akin to some fake news sites. Could you provide any actual evidence of any "fake news" that they've broadcast? Or in 2018 is simply an association with another group proof enough?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Tang_Dynasty_Television
This is their parent company and due to their onesidedness I wouldn't trust anything that comes from their mouth. As well as I wouldn't trust anything coming from the mouth of Breitbart, InfoWars, or any news site from China itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a right to work under the responsibility to protect. Industry structure that produces a permanent underclass is a form of violence, and class warfare.
This is a bizarre take on a business relationship between two free entities. Is an employee allowed to quit? What about the "violence" it does to the company, investors, and fellow employees? Must they stick around to provide continuity? If so, how is this not indenture? Am I allowed to fire a painter I hire to paint my house if I think he does poor work? Do I need to document his performance and discuss an improveme…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Note that you’re basing your calculations on a EUR 100k salary. His 100k are the sum of salary and employer-paid charges. It’s true that California taxes are high. But it’s also true that France taxes are higher. And, to be fair, bring with them higher entitlements.
They're higher in France but not meaningfully higher, hence my comment "not that different". In fact if you take into account the cost of typical private employer-paid healthcare, the cost might actually be higher in California. And I maintain that taxes are just not high enough to be a major obstacle to entrepreneurship in France - and yes I am aware of the dreaded "charges sociales". The reason we hear so much abou…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The government of the United States does not demand that mainland China relinquish control of Tibet. Nor does the USA insist on censoring mainland controversies or on punishing foreigners who say inconvenient things. This difference is essential. You are free to criticize America. People, including politicians, regularly do so. China, despite claiming to be a strong, ascendant power, is remarkably sensitive when it c…
> You are free to criticize America. People, including politicians, regularly do so. Legally you are, yes. However it’s not seen that way but a large swath of people including the current president - the NFL kneeling/sitting controversy being an example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The parent replied to a comment as a rebuttal against the claim that France's employment laws are what you get when you give employees rights. They specially stated the false dichotomy, and made a strong argument. No one here knows if the other option has to be Marriott losing business, so you putting that out there is wrong, and ironically, again a false dichotomy.
Maybe you didn't read the full parent comment? I was responding to this point, which is specifically about the Marriott case. >Executives dismissing a support employee—out-of-touch executives who have probably forgotten how important an ongoing income stream is for people on low or even normal incomes—just to save face in a business relationship is in my opinion unjustifiable.
>Not if the other option was China shutting down a bunch of Marriott hotels and hundreds of employees losing their jobs instead.
to which I said we don't know, and you saying so is a false dichotomy because there are often other options.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"sensible" is meaningless. Everyone gets to make up their own def. Parent is correct, the US is a free country, which means beyond some _very_ simple rules we don't try to think for employers, we let the consumers do that. That's the point of a functioning market. I prominently tell companies why they don't get my business, and Marriott will hear from me next year when I call, waste their time gleefully explaining ho…
Calling the US "a functioning market" is a bit rich. The US society and politics are way too heavily tilted towards the employers, the people who already wield an disproportionate amount of power over their employees. If you actually take the time to voice your displeasure over situations like this, you are an extreme outlier. Most people don't give a shit, and even fewer will even hear of stuff like this happening.…
That is a contradiction, the entire point of a company is to make a profit by providing consumers with something they are willing to pay for. Use all the derogatory words you like, in this case "exploit" seems to mean "employ" (which is pretty odd btw), and "no reason at all" seems to mean "like a tweet".
It's a self regulating system, that's capitalism. Marriott screwed up, and now it's on their permanent record. I'm sure they just lost my business, if I use history as a gauge, and assume I live until I am 90, that's high 4 to low 5 figures in today's $'s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Calling the US "a functioning market" is a bit rich. The US society and politics are way too heavily tilted towards the employers, the people who already wield an disproportionate amount of power over their employees. If you actually take the time to voice your displeasure over situations like this, you are an extreme outlier. Most people don't give a shit, and even fewer will even hear of stuff like this happening.…
"exploit the employees for profit, and fire people for absolutely no reason at all" That is a contradiction, the entire point of a company is to make a profit by providing consumers with something they are willing to pay for. Use all the derogatory words you like, in this case "exploit" seems to mean "employ" (which is pretty odd btw), and "no reason at all" seems to mean "like a tweet". It's a self regulating system…
Do you write down and keep track of all your personal boycotts? Do you check the list every time you make a purchase or pay for a service? Sure, if you're like me, you remember stuff like "Nestle wanted to privatize clean drinking water for profit" and "Coca-Cola paid hitmen to assassinate union leaders", and avoid those companies. But "Mariott once fired a guy for liking a tweet"?
Yeah, no. You'll forget soon enough, just like everyone else. And companies like Mariott are counting on it. I know "the Internet never forgets", but that doesn't matter when it's soon drowned out by a million times more random informational noise. It'll stick around, alright. But only as some random mariottsucks.org website, or as a long-forgotten Facebook group.
They fired a guy for accidentally clicking like on a tweet. If the consequences for that action are so severe, why is it even possible in the situation he was put in? Was he briefed ahead of time that his employment was hanging by a thread, pending a single misclick? In any sensible system, he would have been called for a brief talk with his immediate superior, where he would have been given a warning and explained why it was necessary. He certainly wouldn't have been fired outright for something so minor.
Capitalism self-regulates for maximum profit to the fat cats, maximum work effort squeezed from workers for the absolute minimum possible pay. That's why unions are needed, to balance out the power of the employers, through collective bargaining and solidarity.