vicnov
Because my cynical mind tells me that the only thing it will result in is 1. Extremely low productivity 2. Hiring outside of unions.
Union will push for “union only jobs” and that’s going to result in even less productivity OR robotization of agriculture and construction.
You can do full Dekulakization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization) on them and it won't change anything in current economic situation.
Confiscating 100% of all billionaire wealth (~$8.4T) covers - ~1.1 years of federal spending (~$7.4T) - ~4.4 years of deficits (~$1.9T) - ~23% of debt (~$36T):
and pretty much kills US ability to rely on private sector (and I dont think we have a way to rely on public sector)
The sooner we all start focusing on things that actually matter -- like improving democracy, quality of education (btw spending more may not solve it) etc -- the faster we will improve situation.
Cities like NYC pretty much can afford UBI (look at per capita spending on homelessness, public schools etc). Taxing more may not be the answer.
*it should be studied what motivates people to repeat it
I couldn't guess Dice because, as an ESL person, I couldn't make the D-i combo sound like /d/+ /aɪ/ in my head (it sounded as /d/ + /ɪ/), so a part of my neural circuitry didn't fire, and I couldn't complete it with `ce.`
In other words I, personally, in this pattern recognition game rely on the way words sounds in my head to find familiar combinations and continue the sequence.
It is the weird identity politics is what gets in the way.
So I would agree with you, it is not great.
i don't get it.
The U.S. effectively has a dysfunctional system with wild mix of "no regulation" and heavy state participation. I am not sure there is any country with a deregulated system where people can enjoy good healthcare. You could theoretically say that Switzerland does this, but the government there requires everyone to have insurance, even though hospitals are 100% private.
Market has changed -> we disagree -> we still disagree -> business is bad.
It is indeed hard to swim against the current. People have different principles and I respect that, I just rarely - have so much difficulty understanding them - see such clear impact on the bottom line
I can see how if we, as society, - gain such immense wealth that taking care of/ providing support to/ humans with DS becomes so easy - arrive to the conclusion that there is no downside in emotional health/wellbeing - change definition of what “living full/happy life” Then parents stop perceiving DS as a concern
One can value/respect people with DS and strive to eliminate DS at the same time.
wait.. what?
You’re making an assumption that teams having control over their work will lead to better quality of product (which i agree) and then (I assume you predict), in return, will result in better financial performance.
But is that true? I am not so sure. I worked in some banks and it is very easy to come up with better products for consumers… that will make less revenue to the banks. I also worked in big tech, and so how prioritizing UX over paying customer requests is virtually impossible.
Oh… i also observed teams ACTIVELY not wanting to take steps to improve products because it would lead to taking risks, and most corporations incentivize you to he risk-averse.
This is a very interesting topic, with few clear answers beyond “culture has to be very good to build good products”
Also.. most people want to do their job well, very few people are aligned in what “doing job well” means when it comes to large corporations.
Improvements you wanted were not prioritized not because dev teams disagree, because their leadership needs to hit sales targets, and that probably means catering to some very specific requirements of very large orgs.
There is no malicious intent, and no unprofessional behavior. This IS big corpa working AS INTENDED. Everyone stuck in some sort of local maxima, no one is happy and business is growing.
And consumers will bear the brunt.
Effectively we added a barrier to travel (this IS a tax), with some positive externalities for some people (including me), but whether that tax revenue will be deployed well is doubtful given MTA track record.
(Yes, it was/is underfunded; but also somehow everything is 10x of what it “supposed” to cost)
“without a clear indicator of the author's intent, any parodic or sarcastic expression of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of those views”
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/01/almonds-nuts...
I know, I am engaging in “whataboutism” but I also feel like articles like this are harmful. It is a red herring.
How much water a requires a bag of almonds grown in California?