7 ms·

or every company in the USA given the surreal working culture and level of exploitation that is common throughout the nation.

lotsofpulp 8y ago
Or US voters could do the more efficient thing and ask for nationwide paid maternity/paternity leave, vacation, and removal of “exempt” employees. And decoupling health “insurance” from employers, dump everyone on healthcare.gov or taxpayer funded healthcare.
- adrianN 8y ago
  Can voters ask for anything in a country with a two party system?
  - vinay427 8y ago
    Yes. The US political parties are nothing like parties in a parliamentary system. You don't vote for a party to gain a majority (even if the media sometimes makes it seem like this) and the head of state is not elected by a party. There can be much more diversity within each party organization than there is in the parliamentary sense of "party."
    - chrisseaton 8y ago
      > You don't vote for a party to gain a majority I thought party majorities in the house and senate were crucial?
      - vinay427 8y ago
        There's no such thing, or it doesn't mean anything, legally speaking. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) If a majority of one of the house's seats belong to people who identify with party A, then they're more likely to vote with party A, but they don't have any special privileges like choosing the head of state (e.g. Prime Minister). More practically, to vote in a specific PM in a country with a normal parliamentary system, you need to vote for local representives that belong to their party, then hope that the party keeps them as the PM. Meanwhile, you end up with local representatives you may not want in the course of supporting the party. A president, in contrast, is just voted on more directly (yes, electoral college inefficiencies aside). As far as I can tell, a parliamentary system lends itself to having more parties because they can form coalitions to maintain a majority and elect a new "government" or administration. While that isn't possible in the US, it also isn't directly needed because the President is elected.
        chrisseaton 8y ago
        Almost none of what you're talking about means anything legally speaking in either system - it's all convention and de facto powers. MPs don't in fact choose the PM in the UK system either. It's much more indirectly the case that someone who appears that they would have the confidence of the house to pass legislation may be invited by the Queen to form a government. But talking practically in both systems, and especially in the current political climate, a party majority in the house and senate means everything, as we saw with Obama's inability to pass almost anything from his agenda. Also there is one curious place where the US party system is enshrined in law unlike elsewhere - for some reason your party leadership elections (primaries etc) are run by the government! And in some cases they legally allow non-party members to vote in them (open primaries.) I think that's absolutely bonkers from the UK perspective. Who the party wants to lead them as a candidate is their business alone.
        vinay427 8y ago
        > MPs don't in fact choose the PM in the UK system either. It's much more indirectly the case that someone who appears that they would have the confidence of the house to pass legislation may be invited by the Queen to form a government. Yes. My point stands that the PM is inherently different from a President. The President's party can have no representatives in either body and still be elected by the people. Local elections have no bearing on their election, as you're aware. > for some reason your party leadership elections (primaries etc) are run by the government The US doesn't have party leadership elections, which is kind of my point. The primaries are for an elected position, not a party leader. My ideal is a California or France-style runoff. Why shouldn't the people vote on who their final choices should be?
        chrisseaton 8y ago
        I think one benefit of electing a set of representatives who then elect a leader amongst themselves or with party members is that they should be able to get along together to get things done. If you elect a set of representatives who want one thing, a higher house of representatives who want another, and a premier who wants something else, nothing gets done. > Why shouldn't the people vote on who their final choices should be? People's final choices are whoever applies to be on the ballot and meets the requirements such as signatures in support. If a group of people (a political party) choose to get behind one candidate, and other candidates in the party agree not to run after that choice, then that's the parties' business - the government shouldn't be involved in running that vote and shouldn't force the party to accept non-members in that decision.
- zeroname 8y ago
  > Or US voters could do the more efficient thing and ask for nationwide paid maternity/paternity leave, vacation, and removal of “exempt” employees. Who is supposed to pay for that? If it's the employer, they'll just take vacation/leave out of your/everyones paycheck. If it's paid for by taxes, then the most efficient thing would be to just hand the cash to the people and let them decide whether they want to work or not. > And decoupling health “insurance” from employers, dump everyone on healthcare.gov or taxpayer funded healthcare. I agree with the first part, but dumping "everyone" on taxpayer funded healthcare will only create crappy healthcare for everyone (UK) or two-class private/socialized healthcare (Germany) - except it will be worse because of the inherently higher healthcare costs in the US.
  - lotsofpulp 8y ago
    It would require a downward shift in the quality of life for the upper quintiles, who are currently reaping the benefits of technology and automation, whether deservedly or not.
- AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
  US politics is too busy discussing gender-neutral pronouns and Saudi Arabia internal affairs. Healthcare and education can wait while we're dealing with what really matters.
  - perfmode 8y ago
    > US politics is too busy discussing gender-neutral pronouns What? The US political system just provided a massive tax break to corporations. That's how our time and resources are being spent.
alecco 8y ago
You obviously never been out of your first world bubble. Sure, there are some industries in USA who work very hard. But you got options. You don't get into finance/medicine/tech startups to have an easy work life balance. In many other industries American workers are considered lazy by Latinos and Asians.
- adrianN 8y ago
  Don't you think it's reasonable to compare a first world country like the US with another first world country like France or Germany?
  - alecco 8y ago
    Are those Amazon competitors? Europe is highly regulated and unionized within its borders. Realistically think of Mexico, Canada, and China.
    - chobeat 8y ago
      Countries don't compete with companies. What are you even try to say?
      - alecco 8y ago
        >>> Don't you think it's reasonable to compare a first world country like the US with another first world country like France or Germany? I was obviously replying to that.
        perfmode 8y ago
        It makes no sense.
    - adrianN 8y ago
      I don't understand your comment. Germany and France don't compete with Amazon, they're countries. Are you saying that Amazon can't exist unless they get to use their workers in ways that wouldn't fly in other first world countries? What's the Mexican Amazon competitor?
dang 8y ago
Please do not take HN threads on generic flamewar tangents, nor nationalistic rants. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18662752 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18662752 and marked it off-topic.

lotsofpulp 8y ago

Or US voters could do the more efficient thing and ask for nationwide paid maternity/paternity leave, vacation, and removal of “exempt” employees. And decoupling health “insurance” from employers, dump everyone on healthcare.gov or taxpayer funded healthcare.

adrianN 8y ago
Can voters ask for anything in a country with a two party system?
- vinay427 8y ago
  Yes. The US political parties are nothing like parties in a parliamentary system. You don't vote for a party to gain a majority (even if the media sometimes makes it seem like this) and the head of state is not elected by a party. There can be much more diversity within each party organization than there is in the parliamentary sense of "party."
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    > You don't vote for a party to gain a majority I thought party majorities in the house and senate were crucial?
    - vinay427 8y ago
      There's no such thing, or it doesn't mean anything, legally speaking. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) If a majority of one of the house's seats belong to people who identify with party A, then they're more likely to vote with party A, but they don't have any special privileges like choosing the head of state (e.g. Prime Minister). More practically, to vote in a specific PM in a country with a normal parliamentary system, you need to vote for local representives that belong to their party, then hope that the party keeps them as the PM. Meanwhile, you end up with local representatives you may not want in the course of supporting the party. A president, in contrast, is just voted on more directly (yes, electoral college inefficiencies aside). As far as I can tell, a parliamentary system lends itself to having more parties because they can form coalitions to maintain a majority and elect a new "government" or administration. While that isn't possible in the US, it also isn't directly needed because the President is elected.
      - chrisseaton 8y ago
        Almost none of what you're talking about means anything legally speaking in either system - it's all convention and de facto powers. MPs don't in fact choose the PM in the UK system either. It's much more indirectly the case that someone who appears that they would have the confidence of the house to pass legislation may be invited by the Queen to form a government. But talking practically in both systems, and especially in the current political climate, a party majority in the house and senate means everything, as we saw with Obama's inability to pass almost anything from his agenda. Also there is one curious place where the US party system is enshrined in law unlike elsewhere - for some reason your party leadership elections (primaries etc) are run by the government! And in some cases they legally allow non-party members to vote in them (open primaries.) I think that's absolutely bonkers from the UK perspective. Who the party wants to lead them as a candidate is their business alone.
        vinay427 8y ago
        > MPs don't in fact choose the PM in the UK system either. It's much more indirectly the case that someone who appears that they would have the confidence of the house to pass legislation may be invited by the Queen to form a government. Yes. My point stands that the PM is inherently different from a President. The President's party can have no representatives in either body and still be elected by the people. Local elections have no bearing on their election, as you're aware. > for some reason your party leadership elections (primaries etc) are run by the government The US doesn't have party leadership elections, which is kind of my point. The primaries are for an elected position, not a party leader. My ideal is a California or France-style runoff. Why shouldn't the people vote on who their final choices should be?
        chrisseaton 8y ago
        I think one benefit of electing a set of representatives who then elect a leader amongst themselves or with party members is that they should be able to get along together to get things done. If you elect a set of representatives who want one thing, a higher house of representatives who want another, and a premier who wants something else, nothing gets done. > Why shouldn't the people vote on who their final choices should be? People's final choices are whoever applies to be on the ballot and meets the requirements such as signatures in support. If a group of people (a political party) choose to get behind one candidate, and other candidates in the party agree not to run after that choice, then that's the parties' business - the government shouldn't be involved in running that vote and shouldn't force the party to accept non-members in that decision.
zeroname 8y ago
> Or US voters could do the more efficient thing and ask for nationwide paid maternity/paternity leave, vacation, and removal of “exempt” employees. Who is supposed to pay for that? If it's the employer, they'll just take vacation/leave out of your/everyones paycheck. If it's paid for by taxes, then the most efficient thing would be to just hand the cash to the people and let them decide whether they want to work or not. > And decoupling health “insurance” from employers, dump everyone on healthcare.gov or taxpayer funded healthcare. I agree with the first part, but dumping "everyone" on taxpayer funded healthcare will only create crappy healthcare for everyone (UK) or two-class private/socialized healthcare (Germany) - except it will be worse because of the inherently higher healthcare costs in the US.
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  It would require a downward shift in the quality of life for the upper quintiles, who are currently reaping the benefits of technology and automation, whether deservedly or not.
AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
US politics is too busy discussing gender-neutral pronouns and Saudi Arabia internal affairs. Healthcare and education can wait while we're dealing with what really matters.
- perfmode 8y ago
  > US politics is too busy discussing gender-neutral pronouns What? The US political system just provided a massive tax break to corporations. That's how our time and resources are being spent.

alecco 8y ago

You obviously never been out of your first world bubble. Sure, there are some industries in USA who work very hard. But you got options. You don't get into finance/medicine/tech startups to have an easy work life balance. In many other industries American workers are considered lazy by Latinos and Asians.

adrianN 8y ago
Don't you think it's reasonable to compare a first world country like the US with another first world country like France or Germany?
- alecco 8y ago
  Are those Amazon competitors? Europe is highly regulated and unionized within its borders. Realistically think of Mexico, Canada, and China.
  - chobeat 8y ago
    Countries don't compete with companies. What are you even try to say?
    - alecco 8y ago
      >>> Don't you think it's reasonable to compare a first world country like the US with another first world country like France or Germany? I was obviously replying to that.
      - perfmode 8y ago
        It makes no sense.
  - adrianN 8y ago
    I don't understand your comment. Germany and France don't compete with Amazon, they're countries. Are you saying that Amazon can't exist unless they get to use their workers in ways that wouldn't fly in other first world countries? What's the Mexican Amazon competitor?

dang 8y ago

Please do not take HN threads on generic flamewar tangents, nor nationalistic rants. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18662752 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18662752 and marked it off-topic.