codingmess

You assume it is as effective as onsite work, just like that? If that was the case, why haven't remote work companies trounced on site work companies en masse?

Somebody else earning more than you is not a monster that will eat you, though.

If they would open offices elsewhere, they would drive prices up there, too. In fact here in Berlin they cancelled their plans after protests by the locals.

For example.

We are in a thread about the claim that "As long as annual compensation doesn't let you own a house outright in 5 years in the same area as your place of work, then there is more work to do."

That is what I was referring to.

I think companies are already trying to alleviate the housing issues. But their influence is not as high as you think. Google buses were attacked by locals, for example - they would have enable Google employees to live farther away, alleviating pressure on prices in the immediate neighborhood.

Well the people living there can vote, can't they? I don't see how it is corporate responsibility. Corporations can't vote.

Yes, the corporations are contributing to rent jumps, but that was part of the point: by paying higher salaries, as is being demanded by the pro union crowd here, they also increase the rents. So they can't simply pay enough so that "people can buy a house within 5 years", because housing prices rise along with salaries.

Isn't forming a union creating a "us versus them" situation?

As if companies determine the price for housing. With Sillicon Valley wages, you could easily afford housing within 5 years somewhere else. It is not companies' fault that housing prices have gone up - it is politics preventing building of available housing. It is also an example that shows that no matter how much you pay the employees, housing prices will simply adapt if more housing is not being built.

You can always start your own company if you are unhappy about other companies' conduct.

Condolences

Which is? People crave Socialism?

Even 10 years ago, normal cars had doors that line up, and proper paint jobs.

Just because people barter or keep scores, it doesn't mean they can't do other things, like be nice or give gifts occasionally.

Honestly, to cut the discussion short: do you have kids? I have two kids. Maybe I am doing something wrong, but they are really not all that naturally generous and giving to each other. Must be the toxic capitalist environment they grew up in? How can I activate their socialist genes and make them want to share all their toys with each other?

Again, economic theories don't need to be taken literal, they are simplified models. Just because somebody helps somebody else in need without immediately expecting a carrot in return, doesn't mean bartering is refuted.

Even in our today's world with money, people help other people in need. I don't think it defies economic reason, either. It is "pay it forward" or a kind of social insurance, as people can expect the same being done for them. Also perhaps it is simply a different kind of interaction, who says EVERYTHING has to be modeled as a trade? Or maybe it is the price for belonging to society, or to a certain circle of people, who would shun you if you would display antisocial behavior. Not every exchange good has to be a carrot.

Maybe the insurance model explains it quite well, now that I think about it.

Rational actors also work out in the long run, because by evolution the more rational strategy prevails. So people may not be aware why they help others (they don't do a calculation in their head every time), but it can still be the rational thing to do.

Anecdotal evidence :-)

There are all sorts of societies, or were, throughout history. I remember reading about one where they didn't have the concept of ownership of things. But it was very logical for their environment, where most things would only have been a hindrance. In such a society, for example, maybe people would be wondering why somebody would want to hold on to fish hooks.

So sorry, some anecdotes don't cut it.

Me having an agenda: I have an opinion, obviously. Feel free to take what I say with a grain of salt. My whole point was that you should also take what Graeber says with a grain of salt.

You don't need to barter 1:1 every time. Of course you can track of what people owe you, roughly.

Maybe specific bartering gets more important with bigger societies, when it is not possible to keep track in one's brain anymore.

I'm sure in the average gift economy, people had a sense of value, and whether they were getting screwed over, too.

Graeber is an interesting guy, but he is also a Socialist with an agenda.

"On paper, this sounds a bit like delayed barter, but it bears some significant differences."

Yeah sorry, but it is a barter economy. They only frame it differently to get their papers published.

Yes, it may work not exactly like described in the economics textbooks (and gift economies have some interesting specific properties). But I am really tired of people claiming everything in economics textbooks is to be taken absolutely literal, and if the real world is not like that, then classical economics has been refuted.

Of course they use idealized models in the textbooks, including the rational actor. The economists are well aware that they are using simplified models.

Referring to this, for example: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wxenxx/mozilla-wants-youn...

I think you are contradicting yourself? Didn't you want to say people shouldn't think in absolutes? No, the opposite of "social justice" is not "social injustice", it is real social justice (without the ""). The naming "social justice" in itself is already propaganda.

My ethics simply are different from the SJW crowd. For example, I am for equal rights and treatment for everybody, the woke crowd wants companies to give preferential treatment to women and minorities. To me, that is not fair.

If I would work for Google or other openly SJW companies (including, apparently, Mozilla), as a man I would be at the mercy of my colleagues who could shoot me down at will with unjustified accusations. Why would I subject myself to that? (See James Damore for a prominent example. Mozilla has their Brendan Eich, as another prominent example). They would shame me in mandatory diversity trainings, make me shut up in meeting so that I don't "mansplain", force me to use "gender neutral" language and things like that. That's not just "Fox News World", those are borders I am not willing to cross.

We don't have to discuss it, as it has been beaten to death. I just wanted to say that people's values differ, and unfortunately mine don't align with Mozilla.

I wish more companies would focus simply on creating good technology, and stay out of politics. I don't mind if individuals are political, but there is no need to involve the companies. What is there to gain?

So they simply found a way to operate more efficiently, allowing them to pay their workers more (as they earn more per worker). Why does that need to be framed as "fair"? According to the article, they can afford to pay their warehouse workers more, because they need fewer of them. is that "fair" or "unfair"? How do the people who need a job but don't get a job at Costco because they are not needed anymore feel about it?

Also, shoppers beware. I don't know Costco, but here in Germany there is also a company that is famous for its good prices, Aldi.

Legend has it that they deliberately used wooden shelves in their stores because they looked cheaper, even though actually metal shelves would have been cheaper. Was reminded of that story when I read in the article that at Costco you shop off shipping pallets.

Also Aldi is being criticized for using its market power to demand low prices from suppliers. How does Costco fare in that regard? (I personally don't share the criticism, but I suspect people who are in the business of worrying about "fairness" would).

Your original claim was that parents don't really get "Elterngeld", because they pay for it themselves in taxes.

I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

I think you can certainly say that some people benefit more than others from the "redistribution", even if you don't account for every single spending. There are certainly people who pay more than they receive.

In the case of family support, it is clear the non-parents receive less than parents. If there are no things (or fewer) things that non-parents benefit from that parents don't benefit from, then it is a net loss for non-parents. (Non-parents could for example benefit more from government sponsored care of the elderly, which might in part be taken care off by children of parents).

"Then don't hire employees in a region/country that has good employee protection laws/regulations."

Not very practical for childcare facilities?

" If businesses want to operate in such a region/country they will have to comply with ALL the laws and regulations there"

The point is that laws can be changed. Here in Germany especially, we are very aware that laws are not automatically good. We went through this period of time where a lot of bad laws were in place.

"they should only hire people old enough that they can be sure they're barren/impotent"

Or, you know, men? Which is exactly what the feminists governments want to avoid, but they bring it about with their paternity laws. Also, what you suggest is technically illegal in most Western countries (discrimination).

Sorry, but I get the impression you haven't really thought much about these issues yet.

"14 months parental leave with up to 67% or the maximum"

Yes, the government pays mothers, but it doesn't compensate businesses for the losses they incur when women they hired leave for motherhood. They just have "punishing" laws like the job position has to be kept open in case the mother wants to return. That is a punishment for businesses, who are not at fault for women having children.

"this was never part of my argument."

You just dismiss it if certain types of businesses struggle. I explicitly mentioned childcare facilities because I have experienced the problem firsthand.

The point is that laws can have unintended consequences. And those don't go away by simply saying "the business should just go bankrupt or operate in another country".

"many many businesses and branches of business have difficulty hiring people but that doesn't really matter here."

Of course it matters, it means the cost of hiring women is even higher, because replacing them is expensive.

I personally don't care. I even usually opt for the cheaper Netflix without "Full HD".

"It is not just “mild uneasiness” For many countries it has significant career repercussions to prioritize family."

Yeah, that is exactly the worry about "finances" that I mentioned. Why are you hellbent on disagreeing with me?

I also get the notion that the repercussions may now be less for women because when you hire men, you will now also risk losing them to parenthood. But parental leave is just a small dent. The bigger impact is that women will tend to work only part time or not at all once they have children.

Also, as for the alleged "frowning": doesn't it contradict your theory that fathers actually did take parental leave when they were given time allotted especially for them? Imo it rather confirms my theory, that the reason fathers rarely do it is because it is a female privilege that mothers would have to give up (or would be forced to give up by such new laws). The frowning by society must have still been in place, but the mother privilege was not, because she had no claim on that period of parental leave (it was only for fathers).

I don't understand your logic. You would have paid those high taxes regardless of Elterngeld. You didn't pay those high taxes because you received Elterngeld. Therefore, if you receive Elterngeld, you receive it from other people.

Yes, the government doesn't "give" money, it redistributes it. Some other people are paying for your Elterngeld. Even if in your head you assume that it is paid from the taxes you paid, the money you received for Elterngeld is now missing for other things, they are a loss for the rest of society.

In my opinion, the best protection is to have valuable skills. I personally see no good reason for employment protection. I live in Germany, however, as a freelancer I get no protection at all. Why do some people deserve it, and others don't? What makes an "employee"?

I can understand having to "insure" against the risk of becoming too specialized. Like if you work for one company for years or decades, it might be difficult to find employment elsewhere. However, that insurance should be factored into the contracts "employees" are willing to accept. Likewise as a freelancer, I have to ask for a certain minimum amount of money to cover my risks.

Even for employees the protection might have downsides. They are stuck with inefficient coworkers who can't be fired.If you are young, you'll have to leave before people who are older. And employees might stick to jobs where they are not doing their best for too long. And overall, creation of business is hampered, which hurts everybody.

Just some thoughts.