5 ms·
> Legally mandating remote work That's... extremely totalitarian :) ...but legally forcing employers to allow remote work X days a week for jobs where it makes
by catchclose8919 5y ago
> Legally mandating remote work
That's... extremely totalitarian :) ...but legally forcing employers to allow remote work X days a week for jobs where it makes sense + solid investment in public transit would make wonders.
- goodpoint 5y agoNo, it's not totalitarian at all. The same as not accepting slavery, murder or cannibalism. This is totalitarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism
- LadyCailin 5y agoI’m not defending totalitarianism, but capitalist democracy really does a piss poor job at controlling negative externalities, to the point that I’m not really convinced it’s a good system of governance anymore.
- barry-cotter 5y agoTax the externalities. Capitalism is fully compatible with using the price system to express preferences on externalities.
- Retric 5y agoCapitalism operates fine when you tax the externalities, it’s democracy that has an issue setting up the taxes rationally rather than based on which groups have political power.
- LadyCailin 5y agoOk, so instead of “force companies to allow remote work” it’s “tax companies that don’t allow remote work a bajillion dollars a microsecond”. What’s the practical difference there?
- pas 5y agoum, the tax should be on the externalities. like the pollution due to commute, road wear, the generated traffic contributing to the peak. (eg. if you start work at ~11 instead of at 9 you contribute less to the peak)
- barry-cotter 5y agoThere’s no intellectually defensible way to price the externalities off remote work at a bajillion dollars a microsecond. On some level you have to trust someone somewhere to do a good job. Taxes are tools to help that, not a substitute for it.
- LadyCailin 5y agoThere’s also no intellectually defensible way to price quite a number of potential negative externalities. Dumping toxic waste in drinking water reservoirs, for instance, shouldn’t be allowed at any price. So I don’t think taxes are the actual answer for a lot of things, you just have to straight up ban them.
- barry-cotter 5y agoNo, you can price that. The cost will be so high that people won’t do it and pay the price. That’s the point. You can set a price on emissions or pollution and if it’s a small amount the piece may be worth paying. At higher levels you figure out how to do something else that is not that. You don’t just continue what you were doing at greater scale.
- gidorah 5y agoWho doesn't love a benevolent dictator?
- pas 5y agoYes. Carbon taxes (and probably some land value tax) are the preferred solution.