341–350 of 390 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're middle class, with stocks, a professional job, your own house, you probably have been doing absolutely fine over the last couple of years. It's everyone else who's in trouble.
It might be worth noting that in the US, "middle class" is used in the same way as "working class" is used in the UK i.e. blue collar, non-professionals.
There was a time in America a generation or two ago when you could give your all to a company. Here in Michigan there were a number of small towns where a single employer would dominate. If the town needed something, like a baseball park the owner would simply write a check. If a loyal employee had a health crisis that insurance didn't cover the company owner would write a check. When there were tough economic times…
How is that any different than some fiefdom ruled over by some noble? The whole point of democracy and elective government is that you can't rely on a system like that to be consistently good, whether it's the Duke's son squandering all the wealth and not listening to the people or a shift in management at the company. Just because sometimes there were benevolent companies that decided to contribute to their communit…
I'll also point out that maybe fiefdoms aren't as bad as you think. Don't get me wrong, I think we're way better off now, but I'm sure many rulers were just as generous and caring as these business owners. And it's hard to totally escape any form of hierarchy when you live in a society.
There was a time in America a generation or two ago when you could give your all to a company. Here in Michigan there were a number of small towns where a single employer would dominate. If the town needed something, like a baseball park the owner would simply write a check. If a loyal employee had a health crisis that insurance didn't cover the company owner would write a check. When there were tough economic times…
The idea that power was only used exploitatively after financialization of industry seems incredibly naive to me, or just an extreme warping of history and reality to fit a rose-tinted, romantic worldview.
Letting that level of power and resources consolidate to a few people at the top and crossing your fingers that they'll be "benevolent" is foolish. Historically speaking the % of times these rulers would graciously cover a health crisis out of pocket, or meaningfully donate to democratically chosen local causes was slim to none. Better to distribute the fruits more equally in the first place, but I'm guessing these kind and benevolent leaders would not have happily allowed their workforces to unionize. That expectation of trust only seems to go one way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Accountability? Who the hell wanted either trump or biden in the last election? There is simply no choice because the political elites offered us this and we need to vote our guy not to let the other guy win. The game is rigged and your vote is not worth much. When you're buying a product instead you're effecting real change and telling society you want more of that. If only we could control law making in the same wa…
> Who the hell wanted either trump or biden Let's just dismiss the millions of votes cast in 2020, then?
Ranked choice would show a lot more nuance in people's beliefs that US politics would have to address. I haven't looked into it in some time, though. It seemed to work where implemented in Europe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m frankly boggled that this thought is even entertained. We have literal centuries of evidence of corporations oppressing their workers and other peoples in the pursuit of profits, down to actual armies killing striking workers. I agree with you that you’d be more likely to find a benevolent feudal lord as they at least viewed their serfs as theirs and not some sort of cogs to be thrown away once they were worn out…
I'm not sure you are being clear in your argument. If we have literal centuries of evidence of corporations oppressing their workers [up to and including] actual armies killing striking workers ... how do you think it is possible that they've become more greedy recently? Business greed has capped out since approximately the first 48 hours after the establishment of the first business back in Mesopotamia or wherever.…
I don’t agree with this premise, at least not in the context of the United States. You can even see in recent history where the greed amplified in the 80’s with the phrase “greed is good” becoming popular or that myth about how businesses have a legal requirement to pursue profit over everything got into the American psyche after that case against Henry Ford.
Fuck, charging interest on loans used to be considered a sin in western culture. We explicitly have seen greed change in magnitude.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Welfare also destroyed the family unit (especially in the black community). All I needed to read to dismiss this
It's pretty clear that it did...on paper... Didn't actually destroy anything in practice other than the formalization of that unit
Small aside, reading all these conversations: I just think a lot of static gets injected into these discussions about wage/employers/comp on HN because a large majority of the commenters here are either currently business owners, or founders, or trying to be either of those. But there is also a huge contingent of people who do regular waged labor here, whether FAANG or freelance. Beyond any political differences, I t…
> I just think a lot of static gets injected into these discussions about wage/employers/comp on HN because a large majority of the commenters here are either currently business owners, or founders, or trying to be either of those I've been reading HN for years and I would assume 90% of the comment section or more is people who only want to be employees. I hate to say it, but HN isn't a great place for genuine startu…
That is correct, I've also noticed over the years. I'm sure the public of HN broadened over the years.
I use HN as a more selective/to the point source of tech news without all the karma-whoring that's present on reddit.
I'm delighted to read the comments of really smart people around here, mostly more than the article itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But they won't spend any significant amount of money to keep valued employees, which of course makes said employees look elsewhere. Isn't it rather the other way round: you should be very careful to invest too much money into employees who are willing to quit?
Of we train them, they might leave. But what if we don't train them and they stay?
Companies want us to make them money and we only care about the company's success when it benefits us. But in this 'arrangement' there's an alignment of values: an agreement that we both want the company to make money.
More problems arise when companies succeed but don't share the success or when employees demand high compensation but do nothing to earn it. As long as everyone's honest about their own greed it can work out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think this? Do you count social security as a welfare program and if so would you consider it exceptionally well run and effective?
Because giving individuals money, targeted or otherwise, is given/spent to enhance an individual or families life in some way. It is a direct benefit to them. And yes, SS is absolutely welfare and it is extremely effective. It reduces the poverty rate of the elderly by nearly 30%. It also reduces, directly and indirectly, child and young adult poverty by meaningful amounts as well, 1.5% and 3% respectively.
Regarding your first point, I disagree. I think the intention is clearly to provide a direct benefit, but that isn’t always the effect. One example which seems to be entering the zeitgeist now is student aid. The presence of additional student aid has a high correlation with the rise in tuition over time, but I think we’d all struggle to say it was commensurate with to the cost.
Addressing your second point re: social security and perhaps generalizing my first point slightly, I think the statistics you cite are reductions in poverty vs simply abolishing the benefit. I don’t think they measure the counterfactual scenario of there never having been social security to begin with, and those current seniors having had their take home pay increase by some portion of the 15% of their gross pay which otherwise went to SS. Additionally, it doesn’t take into account the future debt servicing cost of current SS recipients on future generations.