It's still real people who suffer when the numbers tell a different story - not charity cases.
But the point remains that it is only feasible and efficient for the federal government to be tasked with this responsibility.
If the observational basis for this is simply that roughly half of the votes tallied in most elections are split between democrats and republicans, I posit to say that its a gross simplification of voters and their motivations.
[0]: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/07/top-tax-f...
As much as they might want to tax corporations, the voters (since they are older) don’t want their 401k/IRA/defined benefit pension plan balances to go down.
Another signal is there is never any mention of implementing a wealth tax (property tax). Politicians will keep knocking around increasing earned income taxes (which affects workers), but because the older people are the most important contingent of voters, touching property of wealthy people who do not need to earn income is off the table. In the most recent tax legislation, they even specifically left the 1031 real estate exchange intact, and got rid of other 1031 exchanges.
It's your job (and mine).
The world doesn't divide roles that simply. Any community needs much more than 'government' contributing.
I hate this “they’re not charities” bullshit.
What is the basis of this opinion, though? What gives you this entitlement that companies must employ people if they're well off (according to you)?
> The idea that a company making that much money in pure profit needs to "trim the fat" is callous in the extreme, and probably deeply harmful to company morale.
Who cares? You think business isn't callous or even cutthroat? You think businesses care about "morale" over the bottomline? You would be so wrong.
> The employees of a company are absolutely entitled to a share of the profit they personally helped create.
According to ... the petulant ranting of HN readers? Or do you have a more authoritative or objective reason to believe this?
Your insensitive comment is probably showcasing the fallacy of relative privation, but these are real people you're talking about, some are on work visas or are from single income families. Their lives have changed in an instant and instead of empathizing, your reaction is a sarcastic 'those poor ex-Google employees'? Shame on you.
The risks of working at-will are well known, and one would be well served to understand them to avoid disappointment. Actually, the shame is on them for failing to adequately prepare for an obvious inevitability, especially if others are depending on them for support.
Google employees are just like any other tech sector employee. They are neither "lucky" nor "unlucky". There's not much difference, even if they managed to land a job at Google. After Google, their struggles are similar to other tech sector employees. At this point, many of them are uncertain about the future. Layoffs are demoralizing regardless of where one works.
I said they're not suffering, in the true sense of the word.
I am beginning to suspect the coddled and entitled readers of this forum are quite ignorant of what it really means to suffer. A trip to India or any other third-world country would quickly change that attitude.
I am beginning to suspect that readers of this forum don't know how to read, considering I called you out on this fallacy in my original comment. Here's a lesson about it: https://s28543.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/39/2020/04/F...
I sincerely hope you find the maturity required to expand your worldview outside of the sheltered, entitled microcosm it presently is.
I don't suggest telling someone who just lost their job that they should keep a stiff upper lip. I certainly don't suggest you tell them that they should spend some time in a "third-world country" because, well, for one thing, that's rather crass.
But, also, I don't think you quite understand what "third-world" means. It's not based on economic status. It's based on NATO / Warsaw Pact neutrality. Any use beyond that is pejorative at best. Perhaps you mean a "developing nation" or an "economically disadvantaged" nation. Even then, it's complicated.
Hilarious and false.
What evidence will you present in support of this conclusion?
> Especially considering ex-Google employees can land virtually any job with it on their resume
It's only fair to present your evidence before asking other people for evidence when they contradict you.
Now it's your turn!
It’s simply false.
Sounds like a "fun" discussion. Enjoy!
How would you define "suffering?"
Merriam Webster includes "to endure death, pain, or distress" or "to sustain loss or damage" as part of the definition, which definitely seems to include getting laid off.
If I stub my toe and claim I'm "suffering", any intelligent person would laugh at the proposition, because relative to a starving person, for example, it could not be considered a hardship or even mild distress.
I posit getting laid off from at-will employment at one of the most prestigious companies in the history of the world is not suffering, and characterizing it as such is tone-deaf and entitled.
Yes. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/updates/upd-11-18-21.html
At-will employment has nothing to do with anything. Losing your job is a very stressful event.