moate

62 ms·

811.
by moate 7y ago
This is the point that really needs to be driven home. "But what about all the jobs that will close when we make better labor standards" should always be met with "these companies shouldn't exist in that form". Take
812.
by moate 7y ago
>>No, the trade off is being employed vs being unemployed. For some people, yes. But we're looking at the laborers as a whole, not the individuals (and my specific example was more from the perspective of the managers at a compan
813.
by moate 7y ago
There's a lot of assumptions here, biggest among them being >>People wouldn't take $5 per jobs if someone else was offering them $6 or $7 Sure they would. Because a job isn't only wages, there's always some other f
814.
by moate 7y ago
>>There are more considerations than just "number of jobs" vs "quality of jobs" in evaluating what is better. And this is why I'm specifically and repeatedly not getting into the discussion of "which is b
815.
by moate 7y ago
All of the (objectively) stupid people I know who successfully own and run businesses with employees, and the people on this site clutching their pearls at the thought of having to fill out ~5 forms. If you're unable to grow your busin
816.
by moate 7y ago
Frame it another way: You have 120 hours of shifts that you need covered at your job in a given week. You can hire 12 people who each work 10 hours, or 3 full-time employees. The "better" choice again comes down to your goal: More
817.
by moate 7y ago
If they were employees, Uber(and the others) would just be another taxi company and wouldn't have the same market share/investment levels they do.
818.
by moate 7y ago
>>But these types of controls are often not the right tool for the problem. 1- Do you believe Uber/Lyft/etc exploit any part their labor for corporate gain? 2-What do you believe is the correct control to prevent labor explo
819.
by moate 7y ago
Hello. Human who did this. This advice is extremely glib and more of a headache than you're is making it out to be. Sure, there's techniques for deal with this shit. It doesn't change the fact that that it's still a gian
820.
by moate 7y ago
So the trade off is always "more jobs" vs "better jobs". A company can hire 10 people at 10 dollars an hour or 20 people at 5 dollars an hour. Which situation is you believe is "better" depends on your end goal
821.
by moate 7y ago
>>If this law is applied fairly, it affects taxi and limo operators as well Many of those people are already employees or owner/operators. That's why Uber, etc. was able to undercut their fare rates.
822.
by moate 7y ago
Let's wind this back. I can come up with any sort of scenario to justify a philosophical point. But the discussion didn't start there. You've presumably read the article this thread is on, and saw the comment I was responding
823.
by moate 7y ago
Would love to see some studies on this if someone can pull them on that specific style of law. >>Um, I'm not sure people doing crimes need much additional self justification... It doesn't work this way. They do need the addi
824.
by moate 7y ago
I mean there's also the fact that California has pending legislation that seems ready to pass that will kick Uber (and others in the gig economy space) right in the wallet. Next 2 years should be interesting as we see what effect that
825.
by moate 7y ago
Seems best
826.
by moate 7y ago
>>If I steal some old lady's purse, is it "self-justification" if I find some medication in it and return it to her while keeping the purse? Yes. What I'm saying is trying to say "well at least he was nice eno
827.
by moate 7y ago
I think he's being sarcastic/putting up the opposing view points to his opinion? Phrasing seems like ESL speaker, so it might just be lost in translation.
828.
by moate 7y ago
That's a "yikes take" from me dawg. That's what's called "Self-justification". Helping your victim after victimizing them allows you to say "I'm not that bad, I'm helping make sure this does
829.
by moate 7y ago
1- Do you believe that Google isn't engaged in anti-competitive behavior? 2- Investigations have to start somewhere. Sure, those would also be some great people to go after, and everyone is going to have all kinds of expectations of &q
830.
by moate 7y ago
>>I do enjoy cooking by the book from time to time. At the same time, there is a lot of Asian food that is made by instinct. There's nothing unique about "Asian" food in this regard. You can codify anything culinary, an
831.
by moate 7y ago
Your first source link doesn't work.
832.
by moate 7y ago
Why not? If the 2nd amendment is in place to prevent the need for a standing army by allowing for militias to exist and serve as the defense force therefor the maintenance of a standing army is unneeded. The other option is that you support
833.
by moate 7y ago
We disagree fundamentally on basically every point you've made. I do not have the time or energy to debate you on any of this. You have no convinced me of the existence of liberty or freedom actually existing outside of the minds of me
834.
by moate 7y ago
Ah yes, the classic "Facebook already knows everything about you so why not just use them for every facet of your life to prevent other companies from doing what Facebook does with your data" defense. 1- It's an opinion piece
835.
by moate 7y ago
People who's businesses have been disrupted by Amazon's "not a monopoly" and "totally legal" business practices. People who've had their person information disseminated across social media platforms. Peopl
836.
by moate 7y ago
There are exceptions put in place by the state against literally every right you listed (except maybe "conscience" since IDK what specifically you're getting at there, but it's not really important). Democracy has to, by
837.
by moate 7y ago
Here's the thing: Both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists opposed a standing army and saw it as a tool of oppressors. If you want a second amendment, you need to also support defunding the military and a return to militias and mercen
838.
by moate 7y ago
I don't understand. What's "Freedom" and how do I, as a US citizen, actually have it? "Freedom" and "Liberty" are all great, noble words that make for great talking points and sound bites. They'r
839.
by moate 7y ago
>>the original intention of the amendment was a fail-safe against government tyranny Citation needed. There's a constant debate about what the "framers' intent" of any part of Bill of Rights actually were. You say
840.
by moate 7y ago
If only it were that easy.

More ›