tchaffee

Gates has given away about $60 billion so far. His net worth today is about $103 billion. So he's given away over half. How is that a scam? Especially for the charities that benefited and presumably are doing good work for those who need it the most.

Another alternative is to give it away quietly on a regular basis and not seek recognition. Which is what Cook has been doing.

How would you give away that much money so it has a lasting impact? Lump sum would be risky. You would diversify and do it over time. And he is indeed giving it away. Just quietly.

MacRumors reveals that Cook last week donated 10,715 shares to an undisclosed charity. As of the date of the transaction, August 20, 2020 that would put their value at a little over $5M. The gain in value since then means that the shares were worth almost $5.4M as of yesterday’s close.

Cook revealed in 2015 that he plans to give away all of his wealth during his lifetime.

Cook says that he has already begun donating money quietly, but that he plans to take time to develop a systematic approach to philanthropy rather than simply writing checks.

He regularly donates AAPL shares to undisclosed charities.

Or don't shop at all and use that extra time to walk with friends in nature. Or when you really do need to shop, avoid the commute and use that extra time to spend with friends in nature. Being forced to be around strangers to get chores done doesn't put soul into my life.

I also avoid laundromats and do laundry at home and it doesn't feel soulless.

You avoided this question: What tactics do businesses use? Can you name any that you are against?

Solar is going up all over northern Europe and is profitable without government subsidies. Cloudy is just fine for today's solar panels. The technology improves on an almost yearly basis.

How could you possibly be getting paid minimum wage when you claim to be such a good negotiator? Union jobs almost always pay more than minimum wage. They pay more because collective negotiation works better at negotiation than you did at "winning" minimum wage.

You avoided the question of whether you've worked for a large employer like Amazon or Target.

Pay packages are not a change to the wording of an employment contract. What I'm talking about is a change to the contract that would have legal implications. You failed to give an example of an employee that has succeeded in doing that with a large employer.

Your example of highly in demand software engineers does not apply to the average worker - the topic is Amazon warehouse employees forming a union.

Your example of a CEO does not apply to the hundreds of millions of average workers.

In the free market labor can organize to get paid according to their collective value.

To get more pay think about being as organized and as powerful as management and the legal team of the company you are negotiating with. Always be thinking about that.

> Allow me to repeat: Children are not freely consenting adults, which is why they get special legal protection.

You avoided the question about why businesses were fine using child labor before the laws. Your claim seems to be that businesses are nice and negotiate fairly. Why is the special legal protection needed if businesses are nice?

You also failed to explain how you as an individual would negotiate a better healthcare package with Amazon than what is offered now.

> And yet Starbucks and Amazon have had generous health care benefits without unions.

Allow me to repeat: unions negotiated that in the 1950s and now everyone benefits. Without what already happened in the 1950s you can't claim those benefits would somehow magically appear.

And Amazon and Starbucks don't exactly have "generous" healthcare benefits. They have average benefits compared to other US companies. And that aren't nearly as good as what folks in the EU get.

> and the first elected socialist government in France.

So that's the missing piece I was looking for. I think you'll find something similar in Italy.

The big difference in the US is that Americans have never elected a truly labor friendly government. These laws in the EU are not just the result of strong unions. You need government to be on board too and that requires the voters.

Yes, they have always done that. What's your point?

Are you sure that unions are responsible for the EU laws? Can you give any sources for that? I'm truly curious about it because the EU comes up with a lot of good consumer protection and worker laws and it's not obvious what motivates them to do so. Just as example, the law about universal phone chargers. Industry certainly didn't push them for that. Quite the opposite. So where did it come from other than it being a big plus for consumers and in reducing waste?

It's in their annual and quarterly reports where their profit comes from. They run highly profitable coffee stores around the world.

That's always been part of their business model. What they didn't do - because it's illegal - is close shops because they unionized.

The shops are obviously highly profitable. Which is my point. More of that profit could be shared with the workers who generate it. And they would still be profitable. Your scary "unprofitable" is not in sight even after significant raises to workers.

Starbucks profit for 2022 was $22 billion. A 7% increase over the prior year. That leaves loads of room for unions to negotiate higher salaries and better benefits before there is any risk of that happening.

And unions tend to not drive companies out of business because then there is no need for the union anymore and no paychecks to take union fees from.

> I see no reason ever why you would remove right to work in that situation instead of just legislating proper worker rights, except to feed unions.

The massive wealth gaps in the US tell the actual story. Corporations have a huge influence over US law and the laws mostly benefit the corporations over individuals or unions. That's one of the dangers of massive wealth. You can just buy the government. Which has already happened in the US.

You need the strong labor laws first which the US does not have. Right to work in the US is popular in states with the worst labor laws and mostly the poor states.

Right to work could be good under the right conditions. Which the EU already largely has. In fact many EU countries have far stronger labor laws than the EU laws themselves. That's the context within which right to work starts to make sense.

There's a lot more to it than that.

EU legislation establishes individual rights for all workers, with a maximum working week of 48 hours, paid annual leave of at least four weeks per year, rest periods and rules on night work, shift work and patterns of work.

Who needs unions with great labor laws already in place? Of course the right in the US want none of that.

A lot of EU law already in place is a wish list for US employees who join a union.

So have I.

At which companies? Amazon? Google? Target? UPS?

It's the massive employers with huge legal teams where you need a union so you can fairly negotiate with their massive legal team. The subject that started this is unions at Amazon. Not negotiating with your local restaurant about how much they will pay you to wait on tables.

What was the nature of the change? Did you get additional healthcare benefits? The kinds of things that unions negotiate about? Or was it something trivial? The details matter.

If workers can effectively negotiate as individuals then why have wealth gaps skyrocketed in the USA as unions have weakened? The lowest wealth gaps in US history were when unions were the strongest. Wealth gaps in Germany are much lower and unions are much stronger. All evidence points to you being wrong about individuals being good negotiators at getting a bigger share of the pie. And it's just common sense. The idea that most of us are qualified to go up against a big and highly trained legal team is laughable.

You're disingenuously leaving out the massive role unions played in the 1940s and 1950s in negotiating far better healthcare benefits.

Please explain how you would negotiate as an individual to get better healthcare benefits from Amazon when the benefits are provided as the same exact package to all employees. You can't. It never happens. Give even one example of an employee at a large company that has an individualized healthcare benefits package.

> Children are not freely consenting adults, which is why they get special legal protection. That's irrelevant to what we're discussing here.

And yet many businesses used child labor. These are the business you are claiming negotiate in good faith and fairly.

I negotiate all the time and am quite successful at it.

What kind of long term employment contract do you have with your doctor, dentist, department store, or car dealer?

You seem to have lost focus on the topic.

That's just not true. The most recent large scale solar plants in the UK are being built without subsidies and by for-profit businesses.

The technology is improving so rapidly you can't use stats from last year.

You're far more likely to get what you want by having a well written contract.

You may have gotten contract wording changed with a small company, but the Amazons of the world will not do that. And these are exactly the companies where labor needs unions so they can collectively bargain against a powerful and organized management and legal team. You simply don't have the resources as an individual.

Being polite is always a good strategy but being nice would mean working for free. That would be very nice. Is that your approach?

It's also not nice to take your employer to court. What happened to your be nice strategy there? Why did you threaten with legal action? It sounds like you can't even follow your own advice.

If a union is a business that sells labor how is it not win-win for companies to be able to buy labor?

That's also a reductive view of unions. The 40 hour work week, weekends off, healthcare, and banning child labor wouldn't have resulted from your characterization.

What tactics do businesses use? Can you name any that you are against?

> Consider how businesses negotiate

With a highly trained management team and an HR department that is the friendly face to a highly trained legal department.

You're either naive or full of hubris to think you're actually ending up with a win-win situation. Try getting the wording of a contract changed for example. Try proposing using your contract instead of theirs. Any contract you sign is in the company's favor to the full extent allowed by local law.

The only thing that has ever changed that is labor negotiating as a team and with their own highly trained legal team.

The reason you think things are win-win is because you've never had to go to court up against the contracts you've signed.

> They offer nothing in return.

They offer their labor in return. That's extremely valuable.

They are putting solar all over the UK. Today's panels are so efficient that cloudy weather is fine.

This is one of the less obvious reasons solar will dominate. No grid or government to rely on. Russian gas and foreign wars no longer matter. And as battery technology improves it will be 24x7 independence.

More efficient only if you ignore cleanup costs. Fixing climate change isn't a freebie.

Then you've completely misread my comments. Where did you get the idea that I'm interested in anything other than what actually works in reducing harm? Can you quote me?

Pumping money into education about the pros and cons of recreational drug use would likely do a lot to reduce abuse and addiction. However only talking about the harms was already tried and was a failure. Most kids will at least try alcohol or marijuana or vaping nicotine and if you've already lied by omission about the pros they won't trust you anymore. But if you can manage to educate in an unbiased and scientific way that would likely lead to fewer lives damaged. Worth a try at least.