Why aren't these payments taken from the employee then? In my country retirement and social security appear right in my paycheck. Why isn't it the same for freelancers (when they declare taxes)? If their wage is too low as you claim, this isn't something that will change when they become employees, so this solves nothing. If this is about a minimum wage, then the real solution is forcing freelancers to work a minimum of monthly hours, which treats the root problem.
This assumes the meaning of freelancers is being able to join and leave an employer when you want, and not being able to fix your own prices and refuse gigs like others are saying. I think you should be able to open a freelance provider with restrictions, as Uber is doing. I see no reason to outlaw that.
I work at AWS. The service teams do own and write their CloudFormation providers, although if you've written a custom provider you'd see it is somewhat clunky, so it's sometimes considered more of an operational burden, and you can tell.
We dogfood both the SDK and CloudFormation internally, we just deal with its numerous gripes much the same way you would externally (although we can also contact service teams directly if needed).
But why can't he quit? If the owning company didn't assign another guard that's their fault, not the guard. Imagine if a chauffeur was forever assigned to a car because it broke on a disabled parking place. It would just get towed and the bill or court order sent to the actual owner and the chauffeur can quit.
100% blame on Egypt here for a stupid rule ignoring consequences.
Then why not make impersonation illegal? If they enforce making reselling illegal proactively they can enforce making impersonation illegal just the same.
This is overreach. I would be rightly pissed if I lived in CA.
You're thinking like a politician, whose law is a hammer and who sees every issue as a nail. Before regulating, let's see if the free market can't work it out way better by itself. And indeed it can, it's called competition.
Amazon itself claims to be "customer centric" because customer trust ensures sales go up in the long term much better than short gain of abusing the customer relationship. Look at this very thread for more evidence.
Maybe if you didn't need an army of lawyers fighting bureaucracy to found the tiniest company a competitor would already have beaten them. Maybe that's why Amazon feels it can afford this kind of business practices. Your intentions are good but your solutions are not.
Don't forget being able to get high priority in the backlog if you need a feature from another service in order to launch.
Former AWS engineer who launched a service here. That, access to source code and being able to setup an hour-long meeting with any engineer are the big points. Not that I think that lacking these is insurmountable, but they're very nice to have.
Are you deliberately missing the point? You follow a logical chain of building up a roughly coherent view of the world. Not as good as following the kind of thorough reasoning that goes into a research paper (since you always have access to "the right answer") but better than most alternatives that can be mass-produced at that level.
Back in Maimonides' time it would be difficult to provide things other than a lump sum in an anonymous manner. If you employ someone, teach them a job or give them a loan they'll get to know you. So I think step 1 drops anonymity for long-term purpose.
Brigade did not provide their service either. A lender provides the service of lending money over a certain amount of time. This money is like a contractor paid by the hour, working at the borrower's service. Brigade should not be entitled to having that money back until that time has either elapsed or the borrower decides to alter the payments.
Another comparison would be me giving my wallet to a friend to buy something, then the wallet falls from his pocket into my landlord's hands, who declares this must be my next payment for rent. This does not sound fair.
If people stopped buying the proprietary version, manufacturers would make open products. They don't really care either way, they just make a bit more money with proprietary licenses.
Why should he pay more? They signed a work contract. And if that contract says don't unionize, then maybe they shouldn't be surprised to be let go when they try that.
Capitalism says let people do what they want. If one guy undercuts all the others and says he's ready to do it on his own for cheap, let him, he's probably better at it anyway. This lets the other 9 figure out what they want to do, maybe launch a startup or whatever, there's no shortage of things that need fixing on this planet.
So as a libertarian I should be expected to pay taxes I don't want to pay AND build my own roads on my own? Should I also produce my own water? This is ridiculous. These things become impossible to do precisely because we're in this situation.
It would indeed be very hard, if WhatsApp's own claim that messages are encrypted end-to-end is true. Either way (and I disagree that this should be a separate discussion) all methods of global speech control are eventually used for evil.
Overall, your post is more a critic on investment in this period rather than against index funds. Except for the presence of tech, which I'm not sure is this bad for people willing to take measured risk.
>there's too much cash being printed
Agreed, but then why hold on to cash until the election rather than buy gold or similar?
I don't think you need to expand so much on the reason why you're opposed to this business model, it's all understood and well-documented. The usual argument against this sentiment is that it's difficult to establish clear legislation on it. See the very similar debates on planned obsolescence and right to repair.
> Such business model requires the corrupting the law to create completely artificial constraints
So what? As long as no such laws exist that's fine, and a corrupt country will get bigger problems anyway. The problem is that it's not true since constructors can increasingly rely on complexity: reverse-engineering is getting more and more complex (see recent iPhones).
Quite the opposite: the free market will deal with this just fine, giving a big penalty to companies that don't care enough. The government, on the other hand, imposes bad businesses, enables regulatory capture and has proven many times that it has no idea how to handle infosec. These white hat consultants aren't perfect but through competition they're still better than lobbied lawmakers.
To be fair you are comparing an adversarial job with a cooperative one. A crane operator won't feel unsafe, or confronted by someone he calls hostile. This is no excuse whatsoever for the multitude of outraging problems in the system, but the comparison isn't straightforward.
How can I tell you don't work in IT? Almost all companies including mine have ONE site to choose from to do any one thing. If it doesn't work, they either ask their colleagues (which only works if it's not the first time someone is using this around them) or create a ticket for IT.
If you noticed that people with a pimple on the left cheek performed significantly worse in interviews and you had limited time to review candidates, wouldn't you apply more scrutiny to resumes of this type of people? Well, this case is even stronger because there is an intuition at to why people of certain races are more likely to be worse engineers.
To add to this, forget qualifications and experience. If a job pays well, that in itself is undeniable proof that it has greater value, no justification needed. Capitalism works not because it rewards on someone's definition of merit, but because it rewards doing what people want.
As an interviewer at a FAANG, this gets an immediate "I may not answer that" and a little disappointment in my mind. We do not assess resumes, only performance at the interviews. Resumes are only for screening. But this may be a good question at small companies that don't have a streamlined process. Take into account who you're talking to.
Capitalism is the best we've got. It has no responsibility in this unless you consider authoritarianism a better outcome. This hysteria and panic is way overblown. We know this is a possible effect of travel and it's still worth it.
AWS basically finances the rest of Amazon. It's 70% of its revenue (that is public info). Except for retail, the rest is all losses. So the discounts don't matter much, other branches just try to save money (frugality is one of Amazon's core values) but basically get what they need.
That's exactly my problem with him, he is always in salesman mode. He has the conclusion figured out and works backwards to find the arguments he wants to see.