71–80 of 368 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who defines what a fair wage is?
[flagged]
In any case, it is a genuine question from someone living in a decent welfare state and happy to continue to do so. I don't really care to engage in debates of who has the moral high ground, just the practical question, if you have an answer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always argue caution about revolution to help the poor, as there are plenty of examples where revolution killed as many poor people as it did aristocrats. Possibly the least flame war worthy example is the French Revolution. While the popular image is of the great terror killing off nobles, the reality is that most of the killings in Paris were either politicians or unfortunate merchants who refused to sell their g…
I'd say it's very hard to find any violent revolutions that improved a society. It's pretty much a long line of tragedies. I count throwing out a foreign oppressor, like the American revolution or the Czech "velvet revolution" as a separate category. Those can be good.
But any revolution that lasts enough to make into the popular definition of the word will cost more than it gains.
This is a pretty awful, clickbaity title. The implication is that remote work is bad for low-income earners, but that’s not the case. Inequality isn’t bad by itself. If some people are doing better without others being impacted, how could that be bad?
This is a pretty awful, irrelevant post. The current situation is bad for low income earners, because remote work is not available for most low income earners. Some people are doing better while others are being impacted. You're not wrong about a hypothetical situation in which low income earners aren't impacted, but your post reads a lot like using that hypothetical situation to draw attention away from problems whi…
To put forth a really bad analogy... the fact that there is a cure for some cancers doesn't mean the cure is negatively impacting people with cancers that cannot be cured. The incurable cancers are negatively impacting them. The cures (for the ones that can be cured) are purely a positive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always argue caution about revolution to help the poor, as there are plenty of examples where revolution killed as many poor people as it did aristocrats. Possibly the least flame war worthy example is the French Revolution. While the popular image is of the great terror killing off nobles, the reality is that most of the killings in Paris were either politicians or unfortunate merchants who refused to sell their g…
I'd say it's very hard to find any violent revolutions that improved a society. It's pretty much a long line of tragedies. I count throwing out a foreign oppressor, like the American revolution or the Czech "velvet revolution" as a separate category. Those can be good.
The reign of terror in France may not have improved France, but it did scare the European aristocracy, and ended up indirectly giving a lot of political and economic rights to the general population. Aristocrats very quickly realized that they did not want a repeat of that performance in their home countries.
The Soviet Union, especially under Lenin and Stalin was no picnic, but it scared the West shitless, thus forcing it to concede rights, benefits, and legislature to labour movements, to prevent full-scale communism. Social democracy, as an institution, can credit much of its existence to the communist revolution.
People with power over you never give anything up, unless they are scared. Violent revolutions tend to make neighboring oligarchs quite scared.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who defines what a fair wage is?
[flagged]
Pay a wage which is high enough to attract the talent that you need and which still leaves the company with a profit at the end. If there's a wide range that satisfies both of these conditions (and in markets with minimum wages, is legal to pay), then choose to offer a pay rate that best balances getting/keeping the talent you want vs the profitability.
If someone else can do my same job as effectively as me for half the rate, I'd expect my company to switch, just the same way as I'd happily take a 1/2 off coupon on the purchase of my next car, house, computer, or even groceries.
>> "Benefits not available to low-income workers" A more accurate statement would be "Benefits not available to low-income jobs " There are plenty of jobs that simply cannot be done remotely. The more physical the job, the less it can be done remotely. A meat packer at a meat packing plant cannot work from home. A construction worker cannot build houses from a desk. (I'd add nursing, but a large amount of those jobs…
I would also say that even for people that can work remotely, low income may mean worse environment for work at home. Even with three kids I was able to quickly repurpose one of the rooms for home office and get everything needed to work comfortably from home. As my wife does not need to work we have less problem with kids staying at home. This is currently mostly discussion how to provide healthy environment for the…
I would think that working from home all the time as a matter of course (as opposed to being forced to, like during a pandemic) would allow lower income people to live further from the expensive cities and, arguably, in much better conditions.
I know that if I could WFH full time I could move to the suburbs (or even to a smaller city) and live in a house bigger and cheaper than my current flat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Historically, that's what happened. The average wage went down because less training was required despite more people being employed. Revenues went way up, quickly.
Many (now) mass-produced goods also became much cheaper than when they were artisanally hand-crafted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> less commuting will help the environment and that that's worth sacrificing poor people's jobs No, he's saying that if some people work from home and some other people don't, fewer people will commute, the environment we all share will benefit, but people who can't work from home can still do their jobs. (Source: am the one who said it)
Great. Now map out for me what happens to counties that get the bulk of their tax revenue from property taxes and then use that tax revenue to preserve and improve the environs of that county? Just think about it for two seconds: how good is park beautification on one side of the train tracks vs the other? Is that because of commuting or something else? >, but people who can't work from home can still do their jobs s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great. Now map out for me what happens to counties that get the bulk of their tax revenue from property taxes and then use that tax revenue to preserve and improve the environs of that county? Just think about it for two seconds: how good is park beautification on one side of the train tracks vs the other? Is that because of commuting or something else? >, but people who can't work from home can still do their jobs s…
Houses get cleaned and other service jobs get done in suburbs too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd say it's very hard to find any violent revolutions that improved a society. It's pretty much a long line of tragedies. I count throwing out a foreign oppressor, like the American revolution or the Czech "velvet revolution" as a separate category. Those can be good.
> I'd say it's very hard to find any violent revolutions that improved a society. The reign of terror in France may not have improved France, but it did scare the European aristocracy, and ended up indirectly giving a lot of political and economic rights to the general population. Aristocrats very quickly realized that they did not want a repeat of that performance in their home countries. The Soviet Union, especiall…
Also look at all the damage the US did to other societies in the name of preventing "red danger" - the repercussions of which are still being felt in some countries.