11–20 of 201 posts
If some jobs have become zombified because working practices have changed then those jobs need to go. We should support those people through the transition but trying to prop up unviable businesses isn't a sensible policy.
Coming out of this period should be a period of creative destruction but it seems to me current politicians don't have the backbone for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can't help but penalize change. Work from home is a change that is resulting in much lower tax revenue, and they need new income streams to make up for it. "It argues this is only fair, as those who work from home are saving money and not paying into the system like those who go out to work." They simply need more people to "pay into the system" again.
Should we also penalize people who cycle to work, and pack their lunch at home? On paper they are no different than people working from home.
Instead of penalizing change, why not encourage it? When you work from home, you don't put anywhere near the carbon into the atmosphere that you would commuting. You also spend a lot less on lunch, and you don't need to put your children into state-run schools that are really there to function as daycare centers as much as they are to educate. If all of that office space in downtown areas stays dark, and the zoning l…
People who WFH will still spend a similar amount of money, just on different things and in different places.
Instead of penalizing change, why not encourage it? When you work from home, you don't put anywhere near the carbon into the atmosphere that you would commuting. You also spend a lot less on lunch, and you don't need to put your children into state-run schools that are really there to function as daycare centers as much as they are to educate. If all of that office space in downtown areas stays dark, and the zoning l…
I think this is an immune response by capital. If people don’t need multiple spaces for living, that has a big impact on the people who own property and land. Shifting to things like drone delivery, etc, which I think is a great idea, would be an imposition to edified capital interests. I am pessimistic that our system has the will or momentum to shift toward what individual laborers and human groups need, but it is…
I think there may be something else going on. "Essential" work has been allowed to continue, and "essential" had basically been defined as anything directly contributing to economic output.
Meanwhile, the productive desk jobs have moved to the home. This leaves two categories of jobs high and dry, the jobs maintaining the office building, and the bullshit jobs.
The problem is that the existence of bullshit jobs is part of the current deal, and estimates range from 40-50+% of how much work in a western economy is pointless. If the bullshit jobs disappear, it threatens that model and ultimately capital holders. The people may decide to tax capital!
There will be a bill to pay for lockdowns and I expect tax rises are looming but this policy is bonkers. If some jobs have become zombified because working practices have changed then those jobs need to go. We should support those people through the transition but trying to prop up unviable businesses isn't a sensible policy. Coming out of this period should be a period of creative destruction but it seems to me curr…
OR...end the lockdowns and lifestyle restrictions so there are no "vulnerable jobs" to this virus that has a 0.13% IFR [1]. Human choices by governments are both creating the problem and providing solutions to the problem. “The government is good at one thing. It knows how to break your legs, and then hand you a crutch and say, 'See if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk.” ― Harry Browne Remot…
You missed one major point. That IFR is with the restrictions in place. If they were lifted it would be higher.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You missed one major point. That IFR is with the restrictions in place. If they were lifted it would be higher.
IFR is simply the percentage of those infected who die. Lifting the restrictions might cause more deaths, but it wouldn't change the IFR.
Instead of penalizing change, why not encourage it? When you work from home, you don't put anywhere near the carbon into the atmosphere that you would commuting. You also spend a lot less on lunch, and you don't need to put your children into state-run schools that are really there to function as daycare centers as much as they are to educate. If all of that office space in downtown areas stays dark, and the zoning l…
Paying a flat tax on all writeable media to fund GEMA. Having to use Sofortüberweisung for online payments, etc.
There will be a bill to pay for lockdowns and I expect tax rises are looming but this policy is bonkers. If some jobs have become zombified because working practices have changed then those jobs need to go. We should support those people through the transition but trying to prop up unviable businesses isn't a sensible policy. Coming out of this period should be a period of creative destruction but it seems to me curr…
We also need to launch war-like economies to get our green houses gases emission close to zero, asap!
We have known for a long time, the science is solid and being updated constantly, yet large companies don't do shit.
Doesn't matter how much recycling I do (which turns out is probably a waste of time), if a fucking billion dollar company creates a huge mess in a 3rd world country and pays peanuts.
/Rant