191–200 of 264 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should never tax things you want people to do, like posting legitimate job openings
We tax things we want people to do all the time . We want people to buy things, yet we have sales taxes. We want people to work productive jobs and earn money, yet we have income taxes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you advertise a job and fail to find a qualified candidate, and then don't fill that role, is that fraud? If you advertise for talent constantly, interview regularly, and hire rarely (but hire), is that fraud? If you have a single role to fill and advertise it multiple times in multiple states as multiple listings because that's how job posting forums work, is that fraud?
if you fail to find a candidate then you will easily be able to demonstrate that the candidate suing you for violating the law was not qualified and therefore has no reason to sue. if you hire rarely, same thing, if you can demonstrate that it takes a long time to find the right candidate. or, you could be requested to pause posts. to handle a possible confusion about multiple listings, each job could have some kind…
Value judgments are an impossible thing to adjudicate. Though people try them anyway, with lots of unjust results.
The controls summarized in the CNBC piece seem reasonable, or, if not that, then at least not all that onerous. The controls in the actual proposal are less reasonable: they create finable infractions for any claim in a job ad deemed "misleading" or "inaccurate" (findings of fact that requires a an expensive trial to solve) and prohibit "perpetual postings" or postings made 90 days in advance of hiring dates. The con…
Making people able to sue for anyone feeling bad about not having gotten the job is a path you should not take. We have something similar in Germany and its horrible for companies. Leeches bleeding you dry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
not every company is some large mega corp
Ironically small businesses tend to be the most egregious violators of labor laws and humanity in general. Mega-corp isn't typically evil, it just wins a lot by being incredibly advantaged in whatever it pursues. Teams of lawyers, armies of engineers, rows of consultants. Small businesses on the other hand tend to be the ones dumping oil in the river, firing employees that they don't want to back pay, bankrolling fam…
I get confused by other small business owners who complain about this because it’s all stuff you’d need to do anyway.
I use a double entry accounting system in an ERP. This isn’t terribly complicated. I took courses on corporate accounting in college and I took the ERP training. Even if I didn’t have all of that, I’d still have to actually do the accounting in a double entry system because of the legal jurisdiction and corporate structure.
I think that this is a byproduct of the economy being filled with small businesses owned by people who aren’t competent at operating their business as a business, which isn’t the same thing as being successful at making money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want these things, you're playing the wrong game
What game are we talking about? I want to play the “game” of creating things I want created and making enough money to comfortably sustain myself and help those I care about. If I’m hiring people, I want people that want the same things as me and are paid well, or people that are willing to exchange their labor for both a respectable base earning and also extra earning based on how we, collectively, are doing.
That’s the game, and some people believe it’s the only game.
I’m with you though. For me business isn’t a channel for hoarding all possible resources and assets. It’s a combination of a craft and a means to an end. I’d still do it if I needed no profession, because it’s a craft I enjoy.
It’s fun to share that craft, and it’s good to share that craft on generous terms.
The subtle irony is that the version of the “game” as referenced in that other comment is the same, expect that all those niceties only apply to executives and people who already have lots of money. A socially perverse arrangement, to be sure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No they don't. This kind of mustachio-twirling caricature isn't a helpful mental model of how business works. Businesses are just large bunches of people, each trying to maximize various metrics given the incentives they interact with. None of those people, including the owner, is automatically pro-slavery, which is the other word for "wants free labor." Everybody wants to maximize their money received and minimize t…
You're arguing with me, but this statement... > Everybody wants to maximize their money received and minimize their money and work expended to whatever degree possible. ...is exactly in agreement with what I said above. The ideal business is one where you take in money and have no expenditures. E.g., If you're a landlord, you want super high rent and no expenditures on maintenance or improvements. I would also accept…
This isn't a business. And if you found a way to do this, you'd be subject to endless audits and AML/CTF suspicions because actual businesses don't look like this.
Business owners come in a range of personalities, just like everyone else. Some are selfish and unreasonable. Some are altruistic and generous. Some are purely in it for the money, others really love building teams and working in a friendly environment. Some have global ambitions, others just want to get by with as little effort as possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're arguing with me, but this statement... > Everybody wants to maximize their money received and minimize their money and work expended to whatever degree possible. ...is exactly in agreement with what I said above. The ideal business is one where you take in money and have no expenditures. E.g., If you're a landlord, you want super high rent and no expenditures on maintenance or improvements. I would also accept…
> The ideal business is one where you take in money and have no expenditures. This isn't a business. And if you found a way to do this, you'd be subject to endless audits and AML/CTF suspicions because actual businesses don't look like this. Business owners come in a range of personalities, just like everyone else. Some are selfish and unreasonable. Some are altruistic and generous. Some are purely in it for the mone…
The controls summarized in the CNBC piece seem reasonable, or, if not that, then at least not all that onerous. The controls in the actual proposal are less reasonable: they create finable infractions for any claim in a job ad deemed "misleading" or "inaccurate" (findings of fact that requires a an expensive trial to solve) and prohibit "perpetual postings" or postings made 90 days in advance of hiring dates. The con…
How is that at all unreasonable? Why is misinformation somehow ok when it directly harms workers? Don't like it that you have to change your behavior because of some abusers? Sorry but that's how society works for the rest of us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're arguing with me, but this statement... > Everybody wants to maximize their money received and minimize their money and work expended to whatever degree possible. ...is exactly in agreement with what I said above. The ideal business is one where you take in money and have no expenditures. E.g., If you're a landlord, you want super high rent and no expenditures on maintenance or improvements. I would also accept…
I am a landlord. I charge below market rent because it is enough to meet my financial goals and turning over a new tenant is annoying. I spare no expense on maintenance because I value my assets.