3 ms·

> But never since the first day that I stepped into an office as a professional software developer in June of 1996 did I “plan a future” with a company. You're

> But never since the first day that I stepped into an office as a professional software developer in June of 1996 did I “plan a future” with a company. You're missing the point. It's that you're planning your future on having income from the company you currently work for. In Europe they can't pull the rug from under you and say "good luck with your mortgage, you're fired today". Instead they have to say "you are fired, but will receive 3 months of pay while you find something else". So yes, I disagree that they don't owe you anything more than pay for the hours worked. You have an ongoing deal, if that is changed you should get ample time to re-adjust.

scarface74 4y ago
I am planning my future based on having marketable skills, an up to date resume, an up to date “career document”, and a strong network that I keep active. > In Europe they can't pull the rug from under you and say "good luck with your mortgage, you're fired today". I’ll take the tradeoff of much lower taxes and much higher pay any day. > Instead they have to say "you are fired, but will receive 3 months of pay while you find something else" Alternatively, I can save three to six months living expenses so that I’m not at the mercy of my current employer for my food and shelter.
- sebazzz 4y ago
  > I’ll take the tradeoff of much lower taxes and much higher pay any day. Taxes are not (only) because of that. In fact, the employer needs to pay those 3 months often.
- matsemann 4y ago
  You're speaking from a position of privilege. I'd like everyone to have this safety. Not just people like me having a well-paid job.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    That safety net is a societal issue and should be handled by the government - not private industry
    - lostlogin 4y ago
      You’ve just argued against higher taxes. How should this safety net be funded?
      - scarface74 4y ago
        Unemployment is funded on the state level via corporate taxes. I have no issue with getting rid of loopholes on corporate taxes.
        lostlogin 4y ago
        I think you’ve perfectly covered why such a protection is lacking. Schemes someone else pays for sound great, but until people agree to pay them, they don’t happen.
        scarface74 4y ago
        How is that whole depending on your employer for health care working out in the US? Why would you want to depend on them for your long term financial stability?
        lostlogin 4y ago
        Healthcare in the US looks a disaster from where I am in a country with state provided healthcare. I think I’ve been unclear - I believe taxes should pay for healthcare for everyone, and would happily pay more tax for better healthcare.
        scarface74 4y ago
        No I didn’t misinterpret you. I agree healthcare in the US is a shit show and the idea of tying your health care to your employer is asinine. I’m taking that same opinion to its logical conclusion. We already have employer funded state controlled unemployment insurance. Increase that, have companies pay more if necessary and along with untying health care from your employer, we are there. Let private companies focus on their business.

scarface74 4y ago

I am planning my future based on having marketable skills, an up to date resume, an up to date “career document”, and a strong network that I keep active. > In Europe they can't pull the rug from under you and say "good luck with your mortgage, you're fired today". I’ll take the tradeoff of much lower taxes and much higher pay any day. > Instead they have to say "you are fired, but will receive 3 months of pay while you find something else" Alternatively, I can save three to six months living expenses so that I’m not at the mercy of my current employer for my food and shelter.

sebazzz 4y ago
> I’ll take the tradeoff of much lower taxes and much higher pay any day. Taxes are not (only) because of that. In fact, the employer needs to pay those 3 months often.
matsemann 4y ago
You're speaking from a position of privilege. I'd like everyone to have this safety. Not just people like me having a well-paid job.
- scarface74 4y ago
  That safety net is a societal issue and should be handled by the government - not private industry
  - lostlogin 4y ago
    You’ve just argued against higher taxes. How should this safety net be funded?
    - scarface74 4y ago
      Unemployment is funded on the state level via corporate taxes. I have no issue with getting rid of loopholes on corporate taxes.
      - lostlogin 4y ago
        I think you’ve perfectly covered why such a protection is lacking. Schemes someone else pays for sound great, but until people agree to pay them, they don’t happen.
        scarface74 4y ago
        How is that whole depending on your employer for health care working out in the US? Why would you want to depend on them for your long term financial stability?
        lostlogin 4y ago
        Healthcare in the US looks a disaster from where I am in a country with state provided healthcare. I think I’ve been unclear - I believe taxes should pay for healthcare for everyone, and would happily pay more tax for better healthcare.
        scarface74 4y ago
        No I didn’t misinterpret you. I agree healthcare in the US is a shit show and the idea of tying your health care to your employer is asinine. I’m taking that same opinion to its logical conclusion. We already have employer funded state controlled unemployment insurance. Increase that, have companies pay more if necessary and along with untying health care from your employer, we are there. Let private companies focus on their business.