411–420 of 457 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does that mean everyone wants to be a waiter and nobody wants to be a CEO?
> Does that mean everyone wants to be a waiter and nobody wants to be a CEO? You've committed the fallacy of the single cause. A reason doesn't mean the reason for lower salaries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But if you don't work at least 40hrs a week on salary, we're docking your pay. I've never encountered such a system in my 20+ years being paid a salary. What companies do this? Worked for two European firms (including one very large one) and two large American firms during that time. Is it something small companies try to do?
I worked for one of the largest firms in the US, and they required us to report our hours worked every week, docking us if we worked less than 40 hours.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Having no overtime for salaried employees This is just the definition of "salaried employee".
The whole idea of salary is ridiculous. The FLSA needs to be fixed so that forcing workers to work 24/7 is explicitly banned. This is particularly true for workers whose jobs are computer based. Companies think they can pay one shift of workers to keep the computers running 24/7. It should not be that way. If a company wants its computing infrastructure running 24/7 it should pay for 3 shifts of workers. If not then…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Having no overtime for salaried employees This is just the definition of "salaried employee".
I'm salaried, my contract says that I owe them 37.5h a week. Surely if I'm doing my work in much less and stop working, I'm stealing. When I'm waking up at 2am to handle an incident and still have to clock in the day after, "that's part of the job". Favors only go one way
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Ontario, the "dairy cartel" invaded the big name convenience stores and groceries and forcibly replaced product on the shelf with their own without repercussion
I wonder what factors prevented competition with the "dairy cartel" in Ontario as would happen in a free market. Most likely there are restrictions on what products can be sold to willing customers that are costly for smaller firms to comply with. There may also be subsidies that have criteria that entrenched firms benefit from, but impose additional restrictions on how new firms can function.
You're assuming also that the cartel is operating only "economically", not also, eg., bribing, blackmailing, (stealing, murdering, ...), ...potential competitors. Why not just invite any competitor into the cartel? Why not buy them out? Why not "make life difficult" for them?
The underlying assumption that "things wash out" requires supposing that an extremely simplistic newtonian model of an economy where politics doesnt really occur. But people are foremost political, ie., engaged in tribal behaviour, collectivising, using force, and so on. This doesnt "wash out".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Does that mean everyone wants to be a waiter and nobody wants to be a CEO? You've committed the fallacy of the single cause. A reason doesn't mean the reason for lower salaries.
Is it me committing the fallacy or am I responding to the fallacy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does that mean everyone wants to be a waiter and nobody wants to be a CEO?
> Does that mean everyone wants to be a waiter and nobody wants to be a CEO? Unironically, yes. Most people don't have enough exposure to actually understand what the job of a CEO is. I have had that exposure, and I don't ever want to be the CEO of any sizeable company. Once you become CEO, work/life balance utterly ceases to exist, because you are the person imbued as the corporation, meaning you are literally alway…
"You know, one day, my mother, she put me on her knee and she said to me, 'Gaston, my son, the world is a beautiful place. You must go into it and love everyone, try to make everyone happy, and bring peace and contentment everywhere you go,' and so, I became a waiter. Well, it's it's not much of a philosophy, I know... but, well,... fuck you. I can live my own life in my own way if I want to. Fuck off."
Replace waiter with CEO and I think it would still work. I mean, why do any of us do anything?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Markets do not instantly become monopolized, but they do tend that way, and will also eagerly form cartels unless stopped by regulation. Of course it matters what kind of regulation; it's also possible to regulate markets in a way that protects monopolies, and some governments do that. So it's important to have a government that understands the importance of a free market. To give you some examples, the Dutch markets…
> Markets do not instantly become monopolized, but they do tend that way, and will also eagerly form cartels unless stopped by regulation. Monopolization requires control of land or resources. This is because any cartel's attempt to set artificially high prices can be undercut by new entrants to the market who aren't in the cartel. > On the other hand, the market for software is not very regulated, it's heavily monop…
It's not copyright that monopolises software, but api support. The need to reverse engineer other people's work. A lack of open standards. There would be more competition possible in software if regulation mandated open standards and open apis.
So no, you don't need control of land to enable monopolization. You don't need IP law either. There are a million different factors that can drive monopolization, and many of those factors do require some degree of regulation to mitigate them.
Although you could argue that corporations themselves are a government-created construct, and removing those would remove the problem. That could be true, but that's a very big step.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe because if you redefine things that aren't theft as theft you can make any number of things more prevalent than wage theft, or maybe because it confused paying someone late with paying someone never, or maybe because it equated people who are unable to pay due to not having enough money for their basic needs with corporations who most often have plenty of money and assets but still refuse to pay their employees…
I don't understand the chord this opinion strikes. Unless you're letting your personal bias get in the way, there's not a distinct difference between the two.
- They must use the court system, and do so probably without legal representation unless they can find a lawyer willing to work pro-bono. This requires time and money
- At the same time they’re almost certainly job hunting because while retaliation is (sometimes) illegal, it’s trivially easy for businesses to cite other bullshit reasons for firing people and be entirely in the clear, because that’s even harder to prove in court than wage theft
- If they do manage both of those, they now have a documented history of fighting for their rights as workers, and bosses do not like that. It makes them inherently riskier to hire.