witty_username

10 ms·

31.
by witty_username 10y ago
Source for "keeping your workers confused"? It seems like Uber is making drivers listen to anti-union propaganda.
32.
by witty_username 10y ago
That is just like how we buy things for the lowest price.
33.
by witty_username 10y ago
It's undesirable because the company shouldn't be forced to allow unions. Maybe the company thinks unions are inefficient or doesn't like the collective bargaining power (in extreme cases it resembles a monopoly). Companies a
34.
by witty_username 10y ago
Workers indirectly invest in the stock market through retirement funds and other investments. Also, I think higher profits increase bond yields and bank interest rates. > If living costs raise and the quality of available jobs worsens (e
35.
by witty_username 10y ago
I am not saying that and I think the only relevant change is welfare programs—which we can remove/limit for immigrants to stop it from being excessively costly. Tell me a relevant change that affects my case. Take a look at https:&#x
36.
by witty_username 10y ago
I think building a wall will increase the net flow of illegal immigrants as currently more people are leaving than entering. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-... I don't think
37.
by witty_username 10y ago
Define "manipulate".
38.
by witty_username 10y ago
Economies are not zero-sum. The gain of corporations doesn't mean workers are being "screwed". Corporate profits are good; they mean more return to shareholders.
39.
by witty_username 10y ago
Making it compulsory is bad as that means everybody will be forced to pay membership costs and can increase unemployment. Let companies decide what workers they want.
40.
by witty_username 10y ago
How would you incentivize donors? Are you saying we should force people to donate organs? That is horrible.
41.
by witty_username 10y ago
If it happens, then that's what employees/customers want. It's similar to democracy. I do not want to force something on other people.
42.
by witty_username 10y ago
You seem to be implying that is a bad thing. What is wrong with that? Allowing them to donate organs gives them more choices. Who owns a person's body? And donating the organ helps people who needs organs. The person who donates and th
43.
by witty_username 10y ago
The boss is threatening to abuse their power if they do not have sex. An employee can sue the boss for violating the contract. > but in cases where one party in an exchange has a lot more bargaining power, the other party often will agre
44.
by witty_username 10y ago
What is wrong with people selling their organs?
45.
by witty_username 10y ago
https://visualgo.net
46.
by witty_username 10y ago
What is "good for society"? If everyone gains, then it is "good for society" but what if some people gain and some lose, as in most regulations.
47.
by witty_username 10y ago
There might be evidence, but I could not find it in a cursory search. Let us assume constant demand for houses. Suppose a housing shortage is going to happen in 1 year. Speculators will buy houses thus incentivizing construction and lowerin
48.
by witty_username 10y ago
Another example of the dangers of overregulation.
49.
by witty_username 10y ago
> Is the amount of value speculators capture proportional to the efficiency gains? Yes. > If there were less or no speculation, what would be the net result? You would have more housing shortages and more excess housing.
50.
by witty_username 10y ago
Nobody complains about speculators on the way down. Speculators do add value by making the market more efficient. For example, if there is going to be a house shortage then speculators will buy it early thus rewarding people for developing
51.
by witty_username 10y ago
I started programming through Scratch (then I shifted to Python).
52.
by witty_username 10y ago
The proxy companies behavior for TLS 1.3 is a bug and it's easier to fix; they just need to respond that they only support TLS 1.2 and below.
53.
by witty_username 10y ago
Regulations means you force your standards on other people who might not need or want them. If you want other infrastructure companies or decentralized internet, you are free to do that yourself via voluntary means.
54.
by witty_username 10y ago
> Capitalism needs to regulated, or we end up were we are now, where CEO make so much money, vs the combined work force. The CEOs get high pay because their skillset is rare. Exporting jobs is the opposite of exploitation. How can more c
55.
by witty_username 10y ago
18% isn't that high; fixed deposits (almost no risk) give about 8-9%. Inflation in India is quite high.
56.
by witty_username 10y ago
The people can take jobs with low nominal wages which will have higher purchasing power due to automation. Jobs never run out; see lump of labour fallacy.
57.
by witty_username 10y ago
There are always jobs if you take a low enough wage.
58.
by witty_username 10y ago
See lump of labour fallacy. No, they can still build robots inefficiently at low wages. And thanks to the heavy automation their real wage would be decent. > older person is going to suddenly go back to school to learn a new trade is sim
59.
by witty_username 10y ago
> In the US, real wages and purchasing power have been falling Where did you get the idea that real wages are falling? Even that graph seems to contradict what you're saying. I used BLS data to compute an 8% increase in hourly wages
60.
by witty_username 10y ago
> Because profits go up, but wages are stagnant. Corporations are increasingly cutting benefits, pensions, and treating employees as contractors and outsourcing. Millennials today are poorer than their parents were. This is the age we li

More ›