Pyxl101

96 ms·

601.
by Pyxl101 11y ago
Why do you say Uber drivers are employees? There are much better reasons to believe the opposite. Most of the prongs of the employment test fail for Uber drivers, suggesting they are contractors. > Employees are often trained by a more e
602.
by Pyxl101 11y ago
> ask them to break their backs so the extravagantly wealthy can make a bit more money That's a very hostile way to describe working a warehouse job. Offering someone a job is not asking them to break their back. Working for an empl
603.
by Pyxl101 11y ago
> It's the failure to follow through and provide the promised stability. What evidence is there of failure to follow through? Temporary-to-permanent does not mean someone is guaranteed a permanent position, it means they have a chan
604.
by Pyxl101 11y ago
> exploiting the jobless You're committing the fallacy described by the "Copenhagen interpretation of ethics". http://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethi... First, why do you describe of
605.
by Pyxl101 11y ago
No. I read a lot of the replies. They attributed viewpoints to PG that he didn't come close to saying. Example: > [PG] thinks that those concerned with income inequality want communist style income equality. Nope - none of what PG s
606.
by Pyxl101 11y ago
> “People ought to be entitled to what they create” is not a universally accepted principle Yes, in the society and economy we are discussing this is a universally accepted principle. Bob is a farmer. He has the same amount of land as hi
607.
by Pyxl101 11y ago
> If you propose a radical idea like "income inequality isn't bad", you need to expect a debate because the idea is far from proven. Let's say that Bob is a farmer, and (with the same land) can grow twice as many crop
608.
by Pyxl101 11y ago
> People got riled up because he touched an issue that effects people a lot in real life, is seriously effecting [sic] our society and democracy for the worse and got it really, really laughably wrong. What did he get wrong, specifically
609.
by Pyxl101 11y ago
> The man thinks that those concerned with income inequality want communist style income equality. pg's essay did not say that. I think you've misunderstood what he said, and are attributing views to him that are quite far away
610.
by Pyxl101 11y ago
> There aren't too many figures in the business or tech world that I actually admire, and I was really disappointed when a guy that has been this lucky is too scared to acknowledge that life simply isn't fair, and that hard wo
611.
by Pyxl101 11y ago
> [pg is] not going to wake up tomorrow, admit that nobody is asking for 100% income equality and that he was a dishonest sack of shit for pretending otherwise pg did not make the claim that anyone is arguing for "100% income equali
612.
by Pyxl101 11y ago
> RSUs [] are a super-high-value startup's way of granting very nice bonuses to employees in situations where the very high price of its stock makes it tax-prohibitive to use any other more favorable equity compensation vehicle Why
613.
by Pyxl101 11y ago
This is very useful, and not too technical. I've always wondered what it meant, and yours is the best answer I've found so far.
614.
by Pyxl101 11y ago
I thought that Facebook claimed that anyone can make apps available in Free Basics: https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org > Free Basics by Facebook provides free access to basic internet services to a bi
615.
by Pyxl101 11y ago
Why is people selling a problem? For every seller, there is a buyer. (Or, that is, for every sale there is a buyer.) If something serious is happening in the economy, it seems unfair to me to simply halt trading, forcing everyone who has
616.
by Pyxl101 11y ago
I don't see how anyone is giving up the choice of how to access the Internet. Opposing Free Basics is opposing that choice. Free Basics is offering a new choice, and more choices is always a rationally better thing. What is your positi
617.
by Pyxl101 11y ago
It's not a false dichotomy. No one is offering to improve the basic infrastructure, nor lobby for it. The actual choices are the ones he outlined above. Do you ascribe to the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics? http://bl
618.
by Pyxl101 11y ago
> If those opposing the FreeBasics are trying to decide on behalf of poor, isn't FreeBasics itself not doing the same thing? No, not really. It's giving them an option, and they can decide for themselves.
619.
by Pyxl101 11y ago
It's not a straw man. I'm not saying that any argument for income equality is tantamount to communism. I'm simply saying that you can have income equality and still lack a healthy business environment where ideas compete on
620.
by Pyxl101 11y ago
> What we want are policies that do not make it so absurdly easy for those who already have access to capital to continue to accumulate wealth and influence at an exponential rate What specific policies are those? Most people who advocat
621.
by Pyxl101 11y ago
Excellent! Thank you for clarifying. It sounds like the concern is that some people hold a monopoly on power, such that good ideas don't compete on their merits. Is that a good way of saying it? I ask because that problem does not seem
622.
by Pyxl101 11y ago
Is economic inequality a problem in and of itself? Why? Economic quality seems like a red herring for actual issues like how well off people are. Is the actual concern about how poorly off the poor are? Imagine a thought experiment where al
623.
by Pyxl101 11y ago
Waiters and tipped employees are not exempt from minimum wage. They must be paid a wage greater than or equal to minimum wage for every hour they work. Tips can take that wage above minimum, but an absence of tips cannot drop their wage bel
624.
by Pyxl101 11y ago
What specific taxes are Walmart and Amazon not paying that you think they should be paying, or why do you claim they're not paying their "fair share"?
625.
by Pyxl101 11y ago
> 'Return' on an increase in valuation isn't a real return. It's exactly like poker. Completely false. Let's talk about how investment money is used, and how that impacts valuation. Say that a friend has started
626.
by Pyxl101 11y ago
Other recent Paul Graham writings on inequality that I thought were interesting reads: http://paulgraham.com/inequality.html (Inequality and Risk, 2005) - economic inequality goes hand-in-hand with risk. If you remove the p
627.
by Pyxl101 11y ago
Are you sure? You wouldn't have a personal computer, a cell phone, or the Internet. You'd have a rotary telephone in your house only. You'd have a TV that looks something like this: http://www.rewindmuseum.com&#x2F
628.
by Pyxl101 11y ago
I'm simply presenting a thought experiment, not an actual choice. The thought experiment demonstrates that purchasing power has increased from 1970 to 2016 (at least, if you prefer 2016 wages and products to 1970 wages and products). I
629.
by Pyxl101 11y ago
> They use investment vehicles which are increasingly divorced from "real world" economics and more like moving chips around on a poker table. Which investment vehicles are those? You cannot in general invest money into vehicle
630.
by Pyxl101 11y ago
> The nominal wage has increased since the early 70s, but the purchasing power of that nominal wage has gone down faster than the increase. This is policy, not capitalism. Which option would you prefer? (1) You have a 70s real wage, but

More ›