codingmess

6 ms·

1.
by codingmess 7y ago
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?
2.
by codingmess 7y ago
Somebody else earning more than you is not a monster that will eat you, though.
3.
by codingmess 7y ago
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.
4.
by codingmess 7y ago
For example.
5.
by codingmess 7y ago
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.
6.
by codingmess 7y ago
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 highe
7.
by codingmess 7y ago
Isn't forming a union creating a "us versus them" situation?
8.
by codingmess 7y ago
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 buildin
9.
by codingmess 7y ago
You can always start your own company if you are unhappy about other companies' conduct.
10.
by codingmess 7y ago
Condolences
11.
by codingmess 7y ago
Which is? People crave Socialism?
12.
by codingmess 7y ago
Even 10 years ago, normal cars had doors that line up, and proper paint jobs.
13.
by codingmess 7y ago
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 w
14.
by codingmess 7y ago
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 ou
15.
by codingmess 7y ago
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 thi
16.
by codingmess 7y ago
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.
17.
by codingmess 7y ago
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.
18.
by codingmess 7y ago
"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
19.
by codingmess 7y ago
Referring to this, for example: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wxenxx/mozilla-wants-youn...
20.
by codingmess 7y ago
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 "&
21.
by codingmess 7y ago
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 wo
22.
by codingmess 7y ago
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 ware
23.
by codingmess 7y ago
Your original claim was that parents don't really get "Elterngeld", because they pay for it themselves in taxes.
24.
by codingmess 7y ago
I don't understand what point you are trying to make.
25.
by codingmess 7y ago
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
26.
by codingmess 7y ago
"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 the
27.
by codingmess 7y ago
I personally don't care. I even usually opt for the cheaper Netflix without "Full HD".
28.
by codingmess 7y ago
"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 w
29.
by codingmess 7y ago
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.
30.
by codingmess 7y ago
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&

More ›