antisoeu

9 ms·

1.
by antisoeu 6y ago
You inserted the "all", I did not write "they fire all the young people". It's also just an example. It is also not a given that young people will have it easier to find a new job. Youth unemployment is at staggerin
2.
by antisoeu 6y ago
Again, it is a fake distinction. Suppose you had a robot. Would that robot be labor or capital? Assume the robot has the same capability for work as you. At the end of the day it is a machine, so "capital". Likewise you own your b
3.
by antisoeu 6y ago
That's nonsense. In your terms then, just let everybody be self-employed and contract them, rather than employ them. That's the same result I want, that people are responsible for themselves and making a contract with somebody to
4.
by antisoeu 6y ago
Somebody doing your kitchen doesn't have to be employed by somebody else. They can simply have a contract with you. You pay them x in exchange for them going y in your kitchen. Of course they can have opinions or refuse to do things in
5.
by antisoeu 6y ago
No matter what revenue they generate, I find it hard to argue that a janitor at Google deserves more than a janitor somewhere else. Presumably they are all doing the same kind of work. Doesn't mean Google shouldn't pay their janit
6.
by antisoeu 6y ago
Don't you notice that you contradict yourself? You claim they don't decide who gets fired, and in the next paragraph you explain that they will get younger people fired, because they are presumed to have an easier time finding new
7.
by antisoeu 6y ago
As long as they get no special rights to form their unions, fine. In my country, unions get special protections by law, which is not OK. If workers simply choose to monopolize, of course they can do that. Of course laws against monopolies i
8.
by antisoeu 6y ago
Capital and labor is a fake distinction. Your body/capability to work is capital.
9.
by antisoeu 6y ago
"Wishing them away won't have any effect." Laws and social constructs can be changed. As for health insurance (as an example), how do you justify giving health insurance to employees, but not to other people, like self-employ
10.
by antisoeu 6y ago
Why do I lose that right? Back to the example of your kitchen: you hire somebody to redo your kitchen. Why would they have a say in how you want to have your kitchen redone? If you work for a company and you feel they are making bad decisio
11.
by antisoeu 6y ago
Sure, management can be shit, but then the company should simply go to ruins. Likewise, employee decisions can be bad, too. It's mostly magical thinking to assume with unionized employees there will be better decision making. If I had
12.
by antisoeu 6y ago
There aren't any.
13.
by antisoeu 6y ago
"everyone has to play the optimization game as much as the most optimal are optimizing, otherwise they're 'losing' in our economic system, relatively speaking." If a person is happy with their salary, are they reall
14.
by antisoeu 6y ago
"That same business ate years of my life keeping it afloat" Presumably you were paid for your services. If you were unhappy with the pay, you should have renegotiated or changed jobs.
15.
by antisoeu 6y ago
It's still a social construct - all the laws, even nations, are social constructs. I'm saying there should be no special benefits for employees.
16.
by antisoeu 6y ago
If your boss suffers no consequences if you leave, then your job is superfluous and you should leave, or your boss should be allowed to fire you. Exercising one's power - sure, employees can do that, and I support that. I just don&#x27
17.
by antisoeu 6y ago
The "they will work harder" argument is bullshit. If that would apply, companies giving their employees more say and shares would be more successful, and drive away the others, all without the need to form unions. I mean it is pos
18.
by antisoeu 6y ago
As for democracy - because companies are somebody's property. Do you demand democracy in your home? That is, can I decide on a new wall color in your kitchen? I vote for you to paint your kitchen pink, how about that? Employees can als
19.
by antisoeu 6y ago
"authoritarians" - is that what they call entrepreneurs these days? Personally I think the category "employee" should be forbidden. It is a pure social construct. Why is anybody entitled to be an "employee" and
20.
by antisoeu 6y ago
If it is not entitlement, it is greed. I don't say greed is wrong or should be forbidden, just that they should be honest about it.
21.
by antisoeu 6y ago
Just call it what it is, greed. Why is it greedy if company owners want to make money, but "good and social" if workers want to make money? I don't think the "earnings per employee" metric entitles employees to anyt
22.
by antisoeu 6y ago
Here in Germany unions (in tech) will for example make sure that older employees can't be fired, so the younger employees will be fired instead. So I don't think you can simply claim they are beneficial for everybody.
23.
by antisoeu 6y ago
You are not a victim if you are the only non-white person in a room or the only woman at a conference. It's absurd to make a connection to "victim blaming" here. Noticing such quotas as such is of course not racist or sexist.
24.
by antisoeu 6y ago
It's racism if you define a scene by people's skin color. Not sure what there is to talk about. yaakov34 explains it well.
25.
by antisoeu 6y ago
It's still racist. I personally even think racism should be legal - in general, people having wrong opinions should be legal. Doesn't mean I have to like them.
26.
by antisoeu 6y ago
Does ASML belong to "the EU", though, or is it a private company?