A tech unicorn slays, but for how long? I do think the intention of most American tech companies is to financialize some aspect of the market, and that is lucrative and "slays" - but I think such arrangements are moats built with sand. Without that angle, a tech company is just another goods or service and looks less like Uber and more like the gaming industry.
UAW already went through some reforms which is arguably why they're experiencing a surge in popularity. In particular Shawn Fien was part of UAWD's 1 member, 1 vote initiative: https://uawd.org/
The characterization that they would eschew reform even when it would boost their popularity is not reflected in current events (certainly the managerial friendly unions of the past would avoid reforms)
We always ignore Nordic unions when ever we trash talk unions. If things were as easy as black and white then there wouldn't even be a need to debate, the productive non-union businesses would just slay and everyone would be working for them.
Are you saying GM's thinking is broken or the governments? GM did what was in their own best interests, the other was to declare bankruptcy - what company would have chosen different?
Both might be equally capable but the incentives are entirely different. An Engineer is motivated to deliver accurate predictions because that's their job. A CEO is not motivated to deliver accurate predictions because their main job is to hype their product and services.
> They have to compete against other businesses to hire skilled positions.
Yes, but because they are a collective when they "purchase" skilled positions they are usually asking for more than one hire. Yes they are competing against other businesses, and the perspective hires are competing against the other hires. By the numbers, there are fewer businesses hiring then there are workers looking for that position. In other words, the businesses have more leverage then the workers in the form of purchasing power. The laws of supply and demand favor the business if there are no unions.
Edit: FYI: supply and demand for labor is equal when unemployment is at 0%.
Without unions, the logic of supply and demand favors larger businesses because they have greater purchasing power - they are already operating as a collective!
"it doesn't make people feel heard" isn't a real emotion, it includes a judgement about the AI. According to "Nonviolent Communication" p235; "unheard" speaks towards the feelings "sad, hostile, frustrated" and the needs "understanding" & "consideration". Everyone agrees AI would be more efficient, but people are concerned that the AI will not be able to make contextual considerations based on a shared understanding of what it's like to live a human life.
Woah there, let's calm down a second. There is no need to advocate for the profitability and ethics in kidnapping private jets with billionaires on board. I'm sure if we just vote then we won't need violent revolution to avoid billions of people being displaced from climate change.
Arguably they already figured out how to lecture us: "We can't scale back extraction so we might as well go for geo-engineering." Though they are probably still working out how to balance scare tactics with learned helplessness.
Devil's advocate: maybe because the author perceives "tickle down economics" as a position adopted by many of the working class and may even aide in survival.
> When property ownership disappears, all natural rights do.
Statements like this undermines their argument. Microsoft secures all sorts of rights under their EULA and is contractual. Enforcing property ownership is exactly how Microsoft has risen to dominance. And that is to say nothing of the a-historicism of this explanation of property rights.
Indeed. We've been told that the current economic system is providing better access for all, but when we point out specific cases when that is not the case we're then told it's providing better quality to fewer people as if that's what we were originally promised.
Another fast and loose term is "User". The claim OP makes is that Users will control the network and money created. Seeing how you can't directly transfer an NFT from opensea to a different marketplace, I find this claim dubious. But that aside, the "user" is a programmer, not your Aunt and Uncle.
Ostensibly yes because landlords would get a larger share of the surplus, but as long as capital writes regulations, entities that extract more surplus will be better able to change the rules. Just look at how much was spent in California to keep gig workers as contractors.
My family was surprised by the insurrection because the two sides presented didn't consider that a realistic possibility. But if one was to listen to leftist podcasts covering the IDW (Intellectual Dark Web) then it's far less surprising. Manufacturing consent is real.
Right, some people might want to point to a single monetary policy or event but this is a sustained trend of piling on policy after policy. This looks like a "new" ideology showed up and drove policy decisions in a different direction.