91–100 of 226 posts
The world's largest nonprofit! https://www.economist.com/business/2006/05/11/flat-pack-acco...
The fact that this kind of scheme is still possible in our society gives me very little hope we’ll be able to solve any of our major, species threatening problems. But at least some of us will be filthy rich when the party stops.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
For all these "it is better" points, it still doesn't even begin to outweigh the "you get to spend time with your children" point. This is the most important part of child rearing and once they've moved on you'll be thankful you spent your time with them instead of... whatever all that income/societal optimization stuff is. You get to raise your children once.
If one parent is working, the other home with the kids, chances are that the one working can't take as much time off or has a harder time setting a healthy work-life balance (increasing your pay requires working harder).
Using myself as an example: the only reason I can pick up my kid early from the kindergarten and spend quality time with him is because I can afford to not work 9-5 every day due to my wife also working.
From my understanding, it's illegal to not say this in the US - or at least, saying something that would contradict any of it will land you in hot water with NLRB.
How much they actually respects the rights of workers, is another question.
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”
A household with 1 income is almost impossible for most households, they have to compete in a housing market with other families that do have 2 incomes. This automatically raises real estate prices for everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That's why they source their wood in a country with shitty legislation and corrupt politicians. Because they are "working on it". Their wood supplier is operating on a loss, so no taxes paid to the state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This one is 75 characters: > IKEA solved ‘unhappy worker’ crisis by raising salaries, flexible schedules It's not really grammatically correct I think, but otherwise seems like a good compromise: we only leave out childcare subsidies, which is another monetary compensation, and do mention flexible work schedules which is a non-monetary benefit and might be crucial to IKEA's strategy.
But then there’s this rule to not editorialise headlines, so…
Editorialising is NOT the same thing. It is replacing (or adjusting) a title not for length or clarity, but to give a specific slant to a subject or inject the submitter's opinion.
Dang: "Editorializing is editing a title to put one's own spin on it." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32085439>
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Merely acknowledging potential benefits from non-race-to-the-bottom salaries is "pretend charity" now?
Apparently they are literally incorporated as a charity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HN has an 80 character title max length. The full original title is 157 characters, nearly double that. The alternatives generally suggested are to shorten the original title, omitting needless descriptives or words (e.g., counts, emotives, etc.) if possible, or barring that, to substitute alternative text, preferably from a subtitle or passage from the article (both to avoid editorialising): dang comment: https://ne…
This one is 75 characters: > IKEA solved ‘unhappy worker’ crisis by raising salaries, flexible schedules It's not really grammatically correct I think, but otherwise seems like a good compromise: we only leave out childcare subsidies, which is another monetary compensation, and do mention flexible work schedules which is a non-monetary benefit and might be crucial to IKEA's strategy.
Wordsmithing titles is a bit of an art and often a challenge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that this kind of scheme is still possible in our society gives me very little hope we’ll be able to solve any of our major, species threatening problems. But at least some of us will be filthy rich when the party stops.
This scheme was the consequence of radical Swedish politicians, the Socialdemocrats, that tried to take over Kamprad’s own creation by pure theft. https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B6ntagarfonder
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, because raising kids isn't contributing to society.
Contributing to the household income. It takes 2 incomes to live anywhere but BFE in the US.
You can buy double the house with 2 incomes instead of 1.