Earlier quoted context omitted.
uBlock Origin and DuckDuckGo user here, not noticing any change at all in website ads.
You know that, through your choice of software, your observation is not at all meaningful in this discussion?
That's the joke!
L.A. Times to Furlough Workers as Ad Revenue ‘Nearly Eliminated’
31–40 of 568 posts
Re: L.A. Times to Furlough Workers as Ad Revenue ‘Nearly Eliminated’
#32Idea: Whenever there are furloughs or layoff, any payouts or profits for the C-Suite and managers that are higher the average employee, is put into an annuity for the laid off employees. So if a CEO makes 30,000,000, and the average worker is paid 125,000. A 29,875,000 fund will be made to deposit a monthly check into the bank of the fired employees. This includes any profits made from selling stocks. To avoid loopho…
If the CEO has a bunch of shares and their value crashes, do the employees need to pay up to offset the CEO's loss? After all, they are a part of the collective.
I'm not saying CEO's and management shouldn't have their traditional responsibilities.
What's wrong with a windfall to make sure employees are protected. If a layoff is needed, clearly the CEO's leadership had issues - so something needs to done proportionally as severance.
A large change in the lives of employees needs a large annuity fund for the laid off workers. The company can file a loan and pay it out over the next few years. Which will improve the credit score of the company.
Here's another idea, for the sake of a thought experiment: the CEO may need to be fired for not assuring rising salaries and benefits for the workforce. A two-tiered performance system. Employees share voting rights along with the board, and it's by statute so all businesses must comply with it.
Why not consider factoring in laborer's collective time and personal life circumstances as human beings into the equation?
Re: L.A. Times to Furlough Workers as Ad Revenue ‘Nearly Eliminated’
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is how it worked before the internet.
Yep. Maybe we move to a model where low quality/#FakeNews is free but quality costs and, presumably, you then move to a point where pooled subscriptions are a thing under that model. And it costs a substantial amount of money or you get it through a library. There's a lot less accessibility under that model, especially for those that don't really have disposable income. There's also the question of whether enough wil…
>Maybe we move to a model where low quality/#FakeNews is free but quality costs
Are you being facetious with the fake news reference? I don't know what the answer to this problem is, but I hope it isn't a system in which we just lie to poor people and they can only get the truth if they pay up.
Prestige newspapers might not have been widely available for free, but there were certainly credible news sources that were. Free over the air TV and radio broadcasts were once the primary news sources for many Americans, but unfortunately the quality of both has declined. It is a chicken and egg problem so I don't know which started to decline first, but easy access to high quality news is important for an educated electorate which is crucial to a well functioning democracy.
Re: L.A. Times to Furlough Workers as Ad Revenue ‘Nearly Eliminated’
#34I’m definitely in the camp that “the cure cannot be worse than the disease” itself. Sitting in California where there are so few cases makes me wonder if the economic toll is totally worth it. Seems like we’ve used a tsunami to put out a campfire.
The "disease" would be a lot, lot worse without the "cure" though. There'd still be really bad economic effects; there's no scenario in which everyone would just be going about doing business as usual pretending nothing is wrong while the news is reporting on catastrophically overwhelmed hospitals and how if you get to the point where you have serious trouble breathing, you're on your own and might easily die without a chance of being treated. People would be socially distancing of their own accord anyway, the main difference being this scenario has a much higher death toll since the distancing started way too late.
Re: L.A. Times to Furlough Workers as Ad Revenue ‘Nearly Eliminated’
#35I’m definitely in the camp that “the cure cannot be worse than the disease” itself. Sitting in California where there are so few cases makes me wonder if the economic toll is totally worth it. Seems like we’ve used a tsunami to put out a campfire.
It's been very hard for me to understand this line of thinking. As I see it, there are so few cases in California because of the measures that have been taken. Do you think California would not have many more cases if the measures were relaxed? Or do you think that the cases would not be all that bad? Or do you think that they would only affect people that you aren't personally concerned about?
I'm asking honestly for an explanation here, because you're certainly not alone in this view, but I haven't heard a rational justification for it yet, and I haven't been able to come up with one myself.
Re: L.A. Times to Furlough Workers as Ad Revenue ‘Nearly Eliminated’
#36This is an interesting time for ads since people can’t buy most of the things.
And also not a lot of companies want to be associated with Covid-19 content.
Yeah, the Guardian and some of the other British papers have been complaining about how advertisers are refusing to run ads on Covid-19 related articles and how terrible it is that they're not funding journalism: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/apr/01/newspapers-to-...
Re: L.A. Times to Furlough Workers as Ad Revenue ‘Nearly Eliminated’
#37I’m definitely in the camp that “the cure cannot be worse than the disease” itself. Sitting in California where there are so few cases makes me wonder if the economic toll is totally worth it. Seems like we’ve used a tsunami to put out a campfire.
Restaurant bookings and travel were falling sharply in CA even before the official stay-at-home policies[0], so your alternative is a world where huge chunks of the economy are still fucked.
Unless you want to force people to eat at restaurants, travel to conferences, host events, etc...
[0] there's this from March 13, for instance https://blog.opentable.com/2020/covid-19-coronavirus-restaur... , googling conference cancellations and such is left as an exercise for the reader...
Re: L.A. Times to Furlough Workers as Ad Revenue ‘Nearly Eliminated’
#38I’m definitely in the camp that “the cure cannot be worse than the disease” itself. Sitting in California where there are so few cases makes me wonder if the economic toll is totally worth it. Seems like we’ve used a tsunami to put out a campfire.
> I’m definitely in the camp that “the cure cannot be worse than the disease” itself. It seems to be forbidden to debate this unfortunately.
There are responses above now. Looking forward to your debates.
Re: L.A. Times to Furlough Workers as Ad Revenue ‘Nearly Eliminated’
#39I think what is even worse is what recovery looks like. Seems like we are going to be recovering for a very long time. We don't even know how deep the wounds are yet.
Re: L.A. Times to Furlough Workers as Ad Revenue ‘Nearly Eliminated’
#40I’m definitely in the camp that “the cure cannot be worse than the disease” itself. Sitting in California where there are so few cases makes me wonder if the economic toll is totally worth it. Seems like we’ve used a tsunami to put out a campfire.
> I’m definitely in the camp that “the cure cannot be worse than the disease” itself. It seems to be forbidden to debate this unfortunately.
It’s not “forbidden” for y’all freethinkers or autodidacts or whatever the term today is to debate such things and to make the claim is dishonest.
You’d have to find somebody to debate with, however, and most people are not particularly interested in “hang your Grandma for my stocks”. That is not a restriction of debate, it’s the social dumpstering of people beyond either statistics or empathy and that’s a feature and not a bug.