81–90 of 226 posts
The world's largest nonprofit! https://www.economist.com/business/2006/05/11/flat-pack-acco...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is such a regressive view — a household that can only function on 2 incomes is more stressful than one that can operate on 1. Not saying earning potential needs to be the same — but claiming 1 is worse than 2 doesn’t hold water and is a pathological case. In the US it’s a shame we so under/de value child rearing as somehow “less than”
It is better for everyone, and it does not devalue child-rearing at all. It is better for the family: - it has more resources - it has more income diversification It is better for the father: - he doesn't have to carry the weight of income-gathering alone It is better for the mother: - she doesn't have to carry the weight of child-rearing alone - if things go sour, she can maintain herself and/or the family financial…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look, I'm a DINK, don't have kids, never plan to have kids, don't even like kids. But child care is important to both the parents and society. Not subsidizing child care often means one parent has to leave the workforce, and that's almost always worse off for everyone than if they were able to afford child care and can contribute
This is such a regressive view — a household that can only function on 2 incomes is more stressful than one that can operate on 1. Not saying earning potential needs to be the same — but claiming 1 is worse than 2 doesn’t hold water and is a pathological case. In the US it’s a shame we so under/de value child rearing as somehow “less than”
This not optimal for many reasons:
- once the kids are going to school, regular "office hours" daycare is not needed and it skew the relationship even more by removing one task to one party. If that time is used for personal instead of household chores activities, that person not bringing the income is eventually seen as a partial freeloader by the one bringing the income.
- relationship can go sour quickly and if it doesn't work, the "dependent" one doesn't feel as free to end that relationship
- the person taking care of the kid's social life is usually not as rich
The elephant in the room being that in most case it ends up being the woman staying at home in an heterogender relationship in a society with an historically patriarcal model because of income levels which further increase the inequalities and dependentship.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is a primordial forest, and why is its wood so easy to break when in the form of a cabinet?
A lot of high end ikea stuff is REALLY good, it's not all honeycomb crap. Honestly it's ikea or luxury stuff, anything else does not make sense. You can't beat ikea quality and quality at any price point.
OP's link should really include the full title: Ikea’s boss solved the Swedish retailer’s global ‘unhappy worker’ crisis by raising salaries, introducing flexible working and subsidizing childcare Cutting it off there just makes it seem like ikea thinks "more money = happy workers" when in reality it is more nuanced than that.
Subsidizing childcare is also "more money", but only for some workers. If the others don't notice or don't care that they're getting paid less for the same work that's great for the company. I am in favor of flexible work arrangements, and I have no idea if those have costs to the company, or how much more you'd need to pay the workers to accept the less flexible arrangements.
They haven't solved the "not sourcing wood illegally from Romanian primordial forests" yet though. Baby steps.
What is a primordial forest, and why is its wood so easy to break when in the form of a cabinet?
That's a "forrest".
At least in Europe, almost all land has been influenced by humans, and "forrest" is misused for farms that grow trees.
To refer to an actual forrest, an additional qualifier is needed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Walmart had a recent profit of like $5B. How is that not having money? https://stock.walmart.com/financials/quarterly-results/defau...
If they distributed that evenly to every single employee it would only work out to $2k/person. Not nothing, but not life changing.
They haven't solved the "not sourcing wood illegally from Romanian primordial forests" yet though. Baby steps.
What is a primordial forest, and why is its wood so easy to break when in the form of a cabinet?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't a lack of understanding. It's the principal-agent problem. Non-founder executives are usually rewarded for short term results. They'll deliver on this even if it means laying off the entire Python language team in the midst of an AI boom. The market is bad at distinguishing these growth hacks for sustainable business, so they'll see 4% quarterly growth and pile on under the assumption that the hockey stick…
The market is bad at looking beyond the next fiscal quarter.
In the end there is only limited number of entities seeking value. Or long term sustainable profitability. For everyone else it is line going up. Or blindly following others.
They haven't solved the "not sourcing wood illegally from Romanian primordial forests" yet though. Baby steps.
They are reportedly working on it https://www.wsj.com/articles/keeping-sanctioned-russian-timb... My impression is that it's really difficult to do at scale because it isn't trivial to tell this tree from that tree, especially post harvest and paperwork is always spoofable.