bslyke

Reminds me of this classic post: https://twitter.com/LizardRumsfeld/status/107154053707586355...

Being against cancel culture but from the right is "The problems (getting cancelled out of a job) are bad... but the causes (at-will employment), the causes are good."

Chicken, egg issue I think. The people most likely to seed the movement are gonna be activist type people whereas the actual majority of workers might just be left/libertarian leaning but mostly non-political people. Once the majority of workers are part of the union, and if it's really democratic, then the union should reflect what the members want it to reflect (even if it ends up being the same as the activists').

> Seems like lip service to their bases.

Awesome! What's the problem?

Assigning an arbitrary number in a law like this is ridiculous. So 1 under you're good, and 1 over that you're suddenly a law breaker?

Furthermore, as other point out, how do you even objectively count these categorized "things" correctly?

Even once you do have a number of "things" specified in a law, and this is somehow "objective", remember that objective reality cannot be perceived outside of the lens of the subjective.

Therefore, your honor, your laws on blood alcohol level when driving are asinine and I rest my case.

Our welfare state has gaps where non-workers, who should be supported by welfare, are still getting screwed. I thought this paper on the subject was interesting: https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2020/01/20/how-to-fix-o...

Seems like UBI fills in the gaps in a sloppy easy way, while also giving money to workers, who don't truly 'need' the welfare. It frees them from the chains of being stuck at their job, but universal healthcare would probably do a much better job at that for the worst-stuck people (e.g. hate my job but I have a chronic illness with monthly costs > a potential UBI).

Maybe give welfare a cool silicon valley style name instead of the one with baggage and Jack Dorsey will get on-board.