261–270 of 462 posts
I'm a professional, I buy my own tools whenever possible. Gigabit ethernet, big monitor, nice keyboard, desk, chair, rocket fast machine. I've been remote for 13y. It would be nice to get reimbursed, sure, but also I don't want to deal with the administrivia.
Many young people or those cheering for employee/consumer rights do not seem to understand that this does more net harm than good. For small businesses and startups, this can amount to millions of dollars of additional expenses. Like any economically rational entity, your employer is going to respond by reducing headcount, not hiring in CA anymore, cutting costs in your annual raises, or some combination of the above…
If your company can’t pay for the resources needed to do business, they can’t afford to be in business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If that means fewer/smaller startups, small businesses? Ultimately, so be it. This is really what it comes down to. If your business can't afford to employ people then people don't need to work for less, your business needs to cease operations. This bizarre entitlement entrepreneurs seem to experience baffles me. I don't care if the cost of labor makes your business inoperable. Tough shit. The last year or so I've…
Yup. And often those same people will say to others "you need to live within your means". But when it comes to their business, all of a sudden they're entitled to a lot of things. I'm all for small business, and vehemently support many. But there's no constitutionally guaranteed right to a successful business.
And it's ONLY when the given expense is labor. That is the only time this small business apologia goes on a rampage decrying whatever it is. Materials? Rent? Consumables? Safety stuff? Nothing. Crickets.
Laborers are asking for something to offset their costs to work for you? The shit hits the fan and we get a round of think-pieces about entitled workers.
Fuck off. Just fuck all the way off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so?
> If you work from home in California, your employer might be required to contribute to your internet bill, electricity bill, and other expenses necessary to do your job. If a company already has an office near you they may just say you need to come into the office, they will not pay for your internet and electric bill. If you drive into the office they don't have to pay for your car, insurance, registration, gas, et…
I've seen multiple employment ads in Seattle, "If you live within 50 miles of our office, this is an office position".
One had the balls to say "within 100 miles". In Seattle? Fuck that, 100 miles each way could easily be 2-3 hours each way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you opposed to a minimum wage?
On principle, yes. The superbowl halftime show is a good example. As an observer, sometimes its hard to tell if the artist in the halftime show is being paid by the NFL to entertain the fans or if they are paying the NFL (effectively accepting a negative wage) for the chance to promote their personal brand. If they can accept a negative wage when they want why can't I be free to negotiate the same for myself?
I've worked remotely for about 10 years now. I actually don't want my employer covering these expenses. If the employer is covering these expenses it requires me to document the expenses and comply with employer policies related to these expenses. For instance, an employer may mandate what speed of Internet service I am required to have, where I always want the fastest option (gigabit generally) and redundant links.…
I’d go out on a limb here and conjecture that you can still by stuff from your own money without submitting a claim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay? I still don't understand how that means the costs for a private company should shift to the public purse. Please explain.
Work expenses paid for by an employee are typically tax deductible. This wouldn't be anything new. The expenses paid for by an employer are also tax deductible. This would also not be anything new. The idea isn't that the "cost" is borne by the taxpayer, it is that the employee/employer shouldn't pay a tax on the money they used to produce the income.
Many young people or those cheering for employee/consumer rights do not seem to understand that this does more net harm than good. For small businesses and startups, this can amount to millions of dollars of additional expenses. Like any economically rational entity, your employer is going to respond by reducing headcount, not hiring in CA anymore, cutting costs in your annual raises, or some combination of the above…
This is the tired old Libertarian Anthem of "All regulation that helps [workers or customers] will backfire because it incentivizes businesses to [do worse behavior]." The solution is not to throw our hands up and say we cannot possibly regulate businesses because they're so crafty and will always get around it. The solution is to write more comprehensive regulation with fewer loopholes, such that the other, worse be…
Government is like XML, if it's not working just use more!