221–230 of 390 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The counter argument, is that relying on benevolent government to ensure a desired outcome is just as naive. In both cases, the holders of power are people . You're just trading one person for another.
You're trading one person who has no accountability to you in particular or the populace in general with a group of people who have at least some meaningful accountability. That's not an even trade.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an American who has worked closely with the Federal government, I'm significantly more afraid of the idea that the government would be responsible for my medical care.
I guess you should probably tell that to the entire rest of the civilized world where state insurance seems to work quite well.
It's a very similar system, the real difference is that it's illegal to not have insurance, so you are "forced" to always be insured, and unemployment support is more generous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Is the implication that conservatives supported NAFTA because it would reduce poverty around the world? It's probably better to assess peoples motivations as they were at the time, not by what happened. A liberal would say they were focusing on the needs of the citizens of their own country and the problem in front of them. In any case, making this a case of liberals vs conservatives is silly, and to my view reductiv…
As a category I think it’s also generally correct to say they’d argue for not yielding such power to any sort of decision makers, corporate or government, at all. Instead attempting to coordinate empowered individuals through coercive but distinctly non human forces like markets.
Whether the libertarians are correct or not is one thing, but I don’t think they’ve been hypocritical or inconsistent in their motivations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would I care about the fraud rate of anything? I'm not a fraudster.
A common right-wing criticism of Medicare that I was trying to pre-empt is that it is rife with waste, fraud, and abuse. But to directly answer your question: if you want your dollars spent effectively, you should care about fraud rates in services you pay for (public or private).
The US government spends about as much per capita on healthcare as say France, but doesn't cover everybody and without part B is pretty incomplete.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess you should probably tell that to the entire rest of the civilized world where state insurance seems to work quite well.
In Germany, health insurance is also tied to your employer. If you're a freelancer in Germany you pay out of your own pocket every month (around 500 bucks). It's a very similar system, the real difference is that it's illegal to not have insurance, so you are "forced" to always be insured, and unemployment support is more generous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Innovation rate in a society is roughly proportional to the branching factor of the possible futures that that society engenders. One way to reduce the branching factor is to consume (or store) resources that others may use to innovate. "Taking up space" in society corresponds to collecting and storing resources beyond the share which makes you productive, such that an opportunity cost is incurred. Insofar as there i…
The for-profit corporation can survive with “mercenaries” coming and going, compared to the risk averse co-dependent people married to their fake corporation family, the largest and most profitable ones have very high actual and expected attrition, tech workers finally normalizing 1-2 year stints and being okay professionally for the next stint. For the people who don't know they can operate this way, now they have a…
Unions are necessary but insufficient. Why is there no discussion about further alternatives in your replies? Cooperative ownership structures are prevalent and successful by multiple metrics. Do you wish to limit the conversation to only those defensible by your preconceptions?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read the article and I disagree. It does not say it either explicitly or implicitly. The article only urges the reader to think of the benefits to themselves first.. like a company would. I don't think it is an unreasonable approach.
> I read the article and I disagree. It does not say it either explicitly or implicitly. The article only urges the reader to think of the benefits to themselves first.. like a company would. This article is a response to criticisms of a previous article where the author was definitely very mercenary and suggested the only purpose of the exit interview was to “trap” the employee into giving information that their man…
And definately do not go in to air your grievances.
But I generally agree with the mercenary approach, my personal ethos when working for a company is - take as much money from them as possible and provide my best estimate of (money+some reasonable extra) back in value.
The reasonable extra is an investment of time and effort with the goal of paying out as more money later.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The middle class are the ones who are doing fine or great. It's the working class who got screwed over.
Working class was middle class.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The for-profit corporation can survive with “mercenaries” coming and going, compared to the risk averse co-dependent people married to their fake corporation family, the largest and most profitable ones have very high actual and expected attrition, tech workers finally normalizing 1-2 year stints and being okay professionally for the next stint. For the people who don't know they can operate this way, now they have a…
You seem to be implying that there is only one alternative to the current situation: that if you don't want to be a ruthless mercenary the only alternative is to become a sycophant, a simp for the corporation which pays your bills. How unimaginative. Unions are necessary but insufficient. Why is there no discussion about further alternatives in your replies? Cooperative ownership structures are prevalent and successf…
Sure, no, I don't like false dilemmas and am only pointing out that everything you're talking about is aspirational. It means, it doesn't currently exist in the US in any reliable fashion so a current employee that isn't a labor rights activist cannot assume they'll encounter those environments.
I'm a fan of things I've seen in developed countries, such as the employee union having a board seat by law, which also relies on such union existing, this thread isn't about those structures.
In the present, in the US, the dichotomy you summarized is what I perceive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Germany, health insurance is also tied to your employer. If you're a freelancer in Germany you pay out of your own pocket every month (around 500 bucks). It's a very similar system, the real difference is that it's illegal to not have insurance, so you are "forced" to always be insured, and unemployment support is more generous.
What about minors and stay-at-home parents?