Comments by "looseycanon" (@looseycanon) on "Louis Rossmann"
channel.
-
Yeah, Louis, I'm with VW on this one. Anyone, and I do mean anyone, can call and claim, they are someone eligible, to get the information, while only pretending. This time, it was the police, but who's saying, some whack ass won't commit a felony and impersonate an officer, so they can get off payment?
413
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
Nope, it ain't... problem is, that in US, insurance companies are for profit and don't have fiduciary duty and thus, can get away with this sh*t. Ivo Jahelka, a singing lawyer from Czech Republic, say's, "read the f***ing contract. If there are not scenarios listed or there is anything unclear or hazy, define it properly, because when you sign it, it's done!". And if even after that they don't want to pay, sue and make sure, that the proceedings are streamed, so that their business opportunities are damaged beyond repair. And finally, make your own insurance policies. I pay for two Internet connections, because I can't afford to be offline for any reason whatsoever. My network is backed with UPS devices and I run VRRP with a pair of routers with multiple APs to ensure, that I will be online no matter what. People, when dealing with these nut jobs, you have to make sure, that not everything is on them. Don't put all your eggs in to one basket!
6
-
That is actually simple. The problem is mutation, which will occur in a large enough sample, guaranteed. The main problem with Delta is how quickly it spreads. The mutation, that caused this, made the virus less deadly, which was fortunate as hell. Problem is, mutations can not be predicted and thus these people have to think in the blackest possible scenarios out there (basically play plague inc on the lowest of difficulties). What they fear and what they mean by "this is not the last variant we're talking about", is that sooner or later a variant will come, that will be as quick to spread as the Delta, but as deadly as the Smallpox.
That is why the aim is not to allow for people to work relatively safe. We are there already... minus the anti-vaxer movement. No, the aim is to completely eradicate the virus like we did with Smallpox, because only then can things return to normal.
5
-
@gooddogtrainingservices5351 Not exactly. The government, that would turn off the Internet, would cease to be government in days, at least in the West. Solar flares are ridiculously rare to hit Earth. There was like one in recorded history. Pandemics are more common these days, so insurance is to be considered, but that doesn't mean you should not make preparations for such event!
Everyone need's to create their own plan for emergencies, even such as these and work on them, based on probability of them hitting. In terms of businesses, that means they need to have at least a part of company, that would be essential service and have flexible staff, so that they can reorient them selves to that production/service. I work part time in such place currently. When covid hit first, car manufacturing made a dead stop. Entire factory for cable production reoriented itself and started to sew cotton face masks. In terms of other stuff, one need's to be able to function even through such problems as covid, eg. have a job, that actually allows for savings to be made and to have some stored, have a job, that will power through no matter what, such as medical field, and if this is not available, at very least earn prerequisites for such jobs, such as learning to code, learn tax code or maybe getting a commercial driving license.
And finally, where necessary, deploy technical insurance devices. I myself have to make arrangements for shifts at this factory very flexibly. That means, being without the Internet is completely unacceptable for me, as such, I have my network backed up on power and have secondary Internet connection.
Paying money to insurance company is not the only way to be insured.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@psychodadandjfit3974 Not exactly... this is more complicated than you think. Thanks to new policies due to environmental impact (which policies are actually neceseary is a different debate), even the lowest cleaners essentially need master's degree in chemistry, to work safely with their cleaning supplies.
Also, there is machinery on the horizon. For instance I read about a farm that uses very smartly designed cow sheds. Cows are tended to by a number of specialised robots, that even provide some individualised care! They clean stalls, distribute feed, milk the cows, check milk, if it's OK, and transport it for further processing, even masage the cows. Work around those animals could have been taught in weeks to months. Given the ammount of work and number of specialisations, you would need at very least nine to tweleve people to run this cow shed traditionally. With these machines (total of five), you need three. A mechanic, a vet and a clerk. The rest is gone, because of automation. Or garbage disposal. In my home town of Brno, garbage truck is usually crew of three. Two handlers and a driver. Now imagine that IoT expands in to this sector. Imagine battery and engine equiped trash bins, that only need to run them selves to the truck and back. Now you're down to the driver. And this mess is comming, young people see that and go to uni, hoping that education open's them gate to less automatable fields. Now, ask yourself a question. If you were in your late teens, early twenties. Would you rather flip burgers for minimum wage, or empty people's trash cans, or go and study anything, knowing that in your lifetime, your current job, or one you could get right now, will be discontinued?
As for incompetent management... they are not. Did I meet someone who was utterly incompetent? Yes, he was my boss. Why was he incompetent? Nobody above him, he wasn't just a manager, he was the owner and simply didn't give a bird about anything. As a result, we had very simplistic, very easy to learn guidlines and nobody, who didn't work directly with him thought he was incompetent. Meanwhile, in my part time job, there was this manager (head of quality controll), who barrated us for assembling computers without ESD coats, gloves and horseshoes (metalic grounding for boots) on. I asked him, why was he such a prick about it, and he explained to me, that we have to do it this way, so that the company can renew a certificate, that their business partners demand for their suppliers to have, otherwise no business. Nobody else asked him why, he never had to explain and everyone thought, that he was over at quality controll, because he was too slow to assemble a PC. I worked with him on night shift one day, the guy kept pace with our production line alone. But because my esteemed collegues didn't know, what his job actually entailed and what were underlying reasons for his policies, they considered him incompetent, even though he was superior to all of them, both in position and in prowes.
Don't mistake "book smart, but reality clueless" for more knowlegable than you. The fact, that some things can be done some way doesn't mean, it should be done that way. It may be just so, that the book is right and what is done is wrong. For instance, you definitely could carry a hundred kilograms heavy server alone, it would eventually result with you dropping the server on the ground or worse, on your or somebody else's leg, but it can be done. Resulting damages would have to be paid by someone eventually, because there is a "book", that say's so. If it end's with only a destroyed server, that book is the contract. If it end's up with injuries, it end's up with book of law regarding negligence. Or let's take real life case. Albert Einstein is considered to have been autistic. He was completely clueless about real life and society, however, without his book smarts and unique view point, there would never have been theory fo relativity and consequently no GPS, as theory of relativity is used to better sync satelites with ground devices, because, as crazy as it sound's, time run's slower up there in orbit.
Think wider and deeper.
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
The answer is simple. Employers being too demanding. I kid you not. One major employer in my country told me, that they don't hire for any position within one department, for which they are actively advertising!
I'm getting in to interviews, where the boss praises my skills and modesty, yet say's, "yeah, I won't hire you, cause you don't communicate well."... Well, no shit. While he was in his youth honing his interpersonal skills in some bars, I was learning tax code and how to fill in incoterms!
Employers are too spoiled these days. They don't pay a living wage, so why would anyone return to such jobs, state support or none?!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This is actually normal and reasonable. Technically speaking, your work is a service you provide to your company. There is a principle, that tax should be applied in accordance with local law, where the service was provided. For your work, like it or not, that is your office, because that is what's written in your contract (well, usually). And there's a simple solution to this. Simply create 50 branch offices, one in each state, they don't need to be brick and mortar ,simply virtual ones will do, move your employees between the branches in accordance with where they work from and invoice the center. Done. That's how we do it in the EU, when we need stuff done over the border for us.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Folks, you know, what I find baffling? I don't understand, how the bank didn't tell Louis, why he's not getting funding. What was the reason.
My mom was supposed to pay my garbage collection fees in my hometown, she didn't and, me being of age and having a bank account, I ended up with a lean against me being raised by the city, to collect the bill and penalties. The bank contacted me, they didn't even know yet, how much and whether or not there will be a freeze on my account. It was the bank, that notified me, that I am arear on my garbage bills, not even the city. So if I were Louis, I'd make that enquiry and, maybe, just maybe, consider switching banks.
2
-
2
-
Oh Boohoo. I can't find good enough people, to hit ground running. Surprise, you can't find those trained up people, because those work elsewhere. It's fairly rare to find skills, that aren't applicable elsewhere (I'll admit, that your field, might be an exception), but I see this attitude all over the economy!
Take me for an instance. I hold bachelor's degree in accounting, from school, that is known to produce good accountants. I hold FCE certificate (I'm Czech). And for the past four years, I haven't found a job, that would pay for rent, food and second hand clothes! Everybody scoff's "you don't have working experience.", or "you don't know the tools we use." and passes me over. But how am I going to get working experience as an accountant or finance manager, when those are the working experience requirements? And no, lower tiered work, like assistant or invoice clerk, or part time jobs don't count! (that actually told me one of the recruiters I applied with). How am I supposed to know the tools they use, if I can't get to them, because they are paid software and don't have a mentor to catch my mistakes with the software? (Think SAP). Only the employer knows what skills he need's his staff to have and thus must train them, because people, especially in an economy, like the one before Covid.
Schools can't provide the training needed, because they don't work with internal company processes and thus can't respond quickly enough! (putting aside that schools aren't worker mints). And still I hear, how few people enter field and how hard it is to find good people... Meanwhile, there are mobs of people lined up to take the job, they only need a year or so of training, and that's for a fairly complex field, that changes more than once per day and goes through a complete overhaul every four years! Or what about networking? I have seen ads, that required specifically WiFi6 experience no shorter than five years! First routers with this standard are younger than that requirement! Or what about International shipping clerk? A guy, that fill's in paperwork to send off with goods. Why the hell does he need a driver's license, when everything he does can be done and usually is done from a remote office, not to mention the fact, that pubic transportation and mobile broadband do exist?
But no, employers just poach employees from each other, which raises their costs far beyond just increased wage, to poach someone else, and b*tch about taxes, which pay for benefits for the people, who those same employers just refused!
Whenever I hear an employer talk like you are talking now (because they want to make people learn at home, instead of at work), I feel like reading r/choosingbeggars.
PS: Do you want people, to come to you, and ask to be trained? Well fine, allocate one day worth their work hours to study and actually teach them!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Let me play a devil's advocate right now. While I passionately hate Apple, I really don't think this is their mess to clean up. I happen to know, that Wistron doesn't just do Apple, as my former collegue now works at Wistron in a different country. He does more "normal" gear and he never mentioned this kind of abuse. In the mean time, this is not first and I'm quite certain not last case of unspeakable stuff happening in India. Also, is this isolated incident within the company, or is this widespread? Because, if there are multiple Wistron plants and this can be found in just one, then we're at a different case.
Joshua Fluke had a spat with quite a few companies and actual full on confrontation with one company from India specifically over wages (and let's take difference in prices out of the question for a minute), but things quickly escalated in to slave labour conditions with a couple.
Traditionally, it's not job of a company to police other companies beyond quality checks and probably checking certifications, because you really begin to blur boundaries of companies. If Apple has the responsebility for Wistron and has to make sure, that Wistron's employees get payed enough to comfortably live, where are the boundaries betwene the two companies? Aren't they then really one and the same? If so, what tax implications does that have? (and that's just one field!) And that's just situation of one brand/company being serviced by another. What if the service provider has multiple clients with same degree of responsebility for his employees' wage, do all these companies become essentially one through shared responsebility? I really don't think this has acceptable answers without state authority to enforce minimal standards, because companies won't do that beyond marketing potential at top end of effort. Therefore, I'd argue there is something wrong with laws and/or their enforcement in India.
1
-
1
-
1
-
That's rent seeking behavior for you. There's a case to be made about taxes, though. Specifically what kinds of taxes are collected. I read somewhere a while back, that blue states on average collect more from income tax, while red states focus on property tax. The problem is not, that you're overtaxed, if you want to see high taxes, come to Europe. The problem is, that there a lot of real estate is empty, as you have shown it, but value of the building is propped up to completely out of proportion by expected foot traffic, which leads to other vehicles to get your money (loans, ponzi-scheme like fund and share structures)... Really, the problem is, that NYC is undertaxed for property tax! If property tax for certain types of floorspace were high enough, the owners would have no other choice, than to actually look for tenants, or rebuild their property into other types of property (heard there is a housing crisis in NYC). The best thing, however, would have been, to levy a huge vacant floorspace tax surcharge, specifically targeting those owners, who leave their property unoccupied.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Louis, you should get less emotional when discussing complex stuff. I have economics degree, I have been through a subject on the financial market and I didn't understand your explenation, despite knowing, what shorting an instrument is. I know it's hard with mess of this scale, but still, you want us to learn somthing. You need to be understood perfectly.
And yeah, I have to agree. This need's to be more regulated... I would actually go as far as putting a ban on shorting altogether, precisely because it can destroy completely healthy company, just like that. I believe this risk outweighs all benefits of shorting, even potential ones.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yeah, you guys need more regulation... and regulation on corporate speech, that would disallow companies to do damage control. However, the problem is bigger. Amazon delivers to all over the world! There are things you literally can't find in local markets anymore. For instance, I bought a passport wallet on Amazon, because nobody sells those where I live. My dad wanted to buy these special tongues for our kitchen to replace broken ones, which we bought years ago in Italy, guess what. He rode Italy from Venice to Catanzaro and no luck. He didn't find it anywhere in Europe. This lasted for eight years of fruitless searching ended by one hour search of Amazon... Make no mistake, I believe, that change must come here, but I don't believe that companies are even capable of changing from current state of the affairs. It's written in too deep in their DNA. And you can't cause them complete revenue meltdown, because there will always be markets, where something strange or unique will be missing and they'll be delivering to, because local customers have no alternatives.
1
-
We need to change laws a bit... something along the lines of:
1) advertisments are binding in the language used in said advert (basically, adverts imply contract conditions). Eg. to illustrate on an actual case that had been to trial, Pepsi co. would have to find a way to deliver a harrier to a campaign participant, just as depicted in their ad and they'd be forced to expend all company resources to do it to the point of ceasing operation and releasing all their trade secrets to the public.
2) EULA is inammendable after signing up for services, unless law makes that mandatory and ammendment in such case must be strictly to explain provisions of the law, that are mandatory to introduce. If you sign a contract to date X, those are the terms and conditions by which that business relationship is governed. Ony new business, to the extent to which it is new, may be governed by new terms and conditions.
3) This kind of stuff was ripe for a class action and reminding ourselves, that class actions usually deliver 4 to 5 bucks to each participants, even though the pot was much, much bigger. The new rules for them need to be, that the amount paid out are based on the most damaged party and these damages are then multiplied by number of even remotely eligable participants in the class action, and only then this amount calculated amount is then considered for punitive damages, whcich can not be capped. Parent companies and individuals are then responsible with all of their equity for these judgements and they are not dischargable through bankruptcy. Once class action is filed, it can not be ended with agreement.
5) Contracts are, going forward, forced to use not legal clauses, but plain old English as defined by dictionary universally accepted by the court. EG, companies don't get to define the meaning of a word. That is for the courts.
6) Companies are mandated to provide non-lease like options to the market at such price, that the end consumer actually buys. Penalties for even single accidential incomplience will result in fines in tens of percent of highest company value in the past decade.
1
-
Or by building your own cloud, by purchasing a NAS... To be frank, though, there are other reasons, we are buying worse things than we had before. Take Windows for instance. Eversince the era of XP, things had been more and more locked down, the product has been getting worse and worse for the user, yet, we have to upgrade, or face threats and loss of support for the operating system from the software we need to run. Sadly, we can't recompile software in order to make it run on other systems, because that would be breach of copyright, not to mention the technical knowledge necessary, hence, we're on the hook. We need to criminalize these kinds of practices.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Louis you're making one major mistake in hiring. All of what you've described is only good for hiring people, who already did the stuff. Problem is, fewer and fewer people are available, because there are careers out there, that will pay better than board repair. Meanwhile, you have a bunch of young, agitated people in the market, who seek their first jobs and can't find any, so, they don't buy stuff. So by doing this "industry standard" hiring practices, all be it streamlined to the actually useful stuff, you're depleting your potential employee pool, while not helping it to refill, thus increasing the wages you have to pay for new hires, and at the same time, lowering the pool of your future customers, because nobody's gonna need repair, if they couldn't get a job to get the money to spend on a thing to repair.
I'm quite certain, that your hiring procedure is a lot more effective and, frankly, better experience for the employee than most, but it fails to identify the guy, who actually want's to learn board repair. So what you should do, is watch his reactions and if he show's interest in to "why did my attempt fail?" or "what was wrong with the board then?", you should hire him and train him. Sure, he might not linger, but then we're talking about ineffective retention policies, not about hiring nor how expensive that employee is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Louis, this is normal. In Czechia, you can end up getting sued for wrongful termination. When that happens, the court can outright annul the termination until such time, that the employer terminates the contract legally... meaning there is no upward limit to the amount of years, how long can the employee be paid. All it takes is one incompetent clerk at the courthouse, and you're paying a decade and have to fire that employee again. But, there is, fortunately a way around this:
1) maintain your records and don't take the idea of "now I don't need them anymore" to ever come into your mind. Put everything on paper.
2) have more employees on the same job for comparison and have a robust training program.
3) don't be an ass to your employees.
4) always try to end employment in an agreement, fire only in serious cases (alcohol, felonies, etc.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
So, you think, you have it bad... b*tch please. Look at Czech Republic. Compensations promised, never paid out. 1:1. Since covid started, we had three ministers of health. One resigned, after he was forced to rat out a source of information regarding office. 2:1, second resigned, after he was found in a pub, he ordered closed based on spreading of the infection. 3:1. To make things worse, he was minister for about a month, spawning all sorts of jokes, saying "minister is part time job.", so stop whining. You may have seen a lot. It's nothing compared to us. Oh and rumor has it, there will be fourth minister in like a month!
1
-
The problem is, a lot of this shit is hidden in other agendas, that people " actgually want". Take that emissions lock. That is now being legislated as part of Euro7 (or at least it was. Last time I heard, Euro7 had been somewhat watered down) and nobody's stopping to think for a moment, that five years down the line, the company will drop support for that car/model, and it will brick itself over it, because all commands to the car are done remotely by design and if you attempt to bypass it, it will brick again. And if you'll want to buy a car, that doesn have these technologies? Guess what, suddenly, you have to pay much, much higher tax or mandatory insurance...
1
-
1
-
OK, couple of things.
1) No, they are not different people. If you looked at long term trends (and covid is mere accelerator, not structural change), you'd see, that usually same people move to same places. Eg. California republicans move to republican states, democrats to democratic states. Exceptions to this were major cities, like Dallas or Houston, which have gone somewhat purple to blue, in otherwise red states. That being said, I don't think jobs alone (although they are a factor) and by it caused immigration to these cities are core reasons for this change. That is a different debate though. Facts don't change. Statistics don't lie. Among the factors, which determine, where a person will relocate to, in top ten there are question of politics (red/blue states), guns (rights/control), taxes as well as costs of living... Exodus from New York and other big cities is not the source of gentrification in small towns, because there is actually none. Now, when you filter that thing out, what you are left with, is poor city planing and, frankly, unforeseeable natural catastrophe. If what you've said is true and everything were simple supply and demand with some market manipulation sprinkled in, my studies of macro economics would have been a lot simpler and less of a headache.
2) If you want to point a finger at entities responsible, you need to not point at FED. Why? Simple. FED, or any other central bank, can't take in to consideration only sectors of economy. Sure, we have a bit of hidden inflation problem world wide, because naturally and artificially limited resource of land has been drastically reduced in terms of usability, which has driven prices sky high. I'm in this pot too, thanks to meat prices going up in my country 25% (not kidding). But the fact, that inflation in certain segments of the economy hits low earners much, much more harshly than others is not a question for FED. That is question for the House of representatives, the Senate and the IRS! Make no mistake, those responsible here are the FTC, FCC, AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Hughes Net and other ISPs, who have oligopoly and don't compete for new contracts, don't make serious attempts at reaching these small towns and don't cooperate with WISP providers, which could get fast enough Internet to the smallest hamlet, to the loneliest ranch. US midwest is not Australian outback. The distances are much, much shorter and yet, Internet availability is similar in both places. Your prices are evidence of this. I pay for 100/30+ public IPv4 address about twenty five bucks! My contract with my ISP is a cookie cutter contract + that IP (eg.I don't get double NATed)! Yet similar plans over in the US cost double to triple! In Germany, country far closer in terms of income to the US, they pay the same as I do here, where I live. Nowhere in Europe, there are as high prices for Internet access as in the US. You still have Internet over COAX cable, my ISP does new installs in fiber-to-premises only, yet, for the likes of you, out market is over regulated and taxes are waaay too high... If you had a bit more regulated market, higher taxes for more IRS agents, and, you know... enforced anti-trust laws, you'd have 100/100 to every household in the US by now and this mess of accelerated migration would not have ever happened, because there wouldn't be few and far in between places with cheap houses and serviceable Internet. Sure prices would have risen, but not as sharply, creating opportunity for real wage increase.
3) You might want to bash your employers for underpaying certain professions... cough Amazon cough tipped employees *cough*. It is as if you need 15 USD federal minimum wage and jail time for employers, who don't pay at least it...
So to sum up. This is result of laisse faire economics of the US. And what is the worst on this? The only person, who's doing something about it, is a snake oil salesman with rockets and microstellites...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This will piss you of Louis, but I say, this is actually on the customer. Why?
1. You don't buy HP, even if it's the only MFC you can buy. You smuggle in nearly anything else.
2. You buy the device you intend to use. If you expect heavy duty printing and some light scanning, then by all means. Buy yourself a ink printer. If it's the other way around, buy a laser and if you only expect to scan, you buy stand alone scanner.
And finally, since the market clearly doesn't work, you need more legislation, specifically change patent and copyright law and change your taxation, to prevent companies from being able to raise these shinnanigans.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh you're wrong, louis. Mistakes are absolutely going to be done on the billionaire level. There is a reason, why S&P or EY exist. That is, when you'll get large enough in terms of money, only they can make your audit and certify your accounting. At the billionaire level, you have so many transactions, you actually need the guy dedicated to it, because it actually take's a full day to sort it all out.
Also, you don't have to spend x hours doing accounting your self. In my country, you can buy service on a per-value basis, meaning a typical invoice costs you about a Dollar, filing for taxes costs you like forty per quarter, plus there are packages which are even cheaper, and all you need to do, is to get your invoices to your accounting service provider as soon as possible, which is literally a scan and email or a fax away. At that point, what you say here are excuses, not arguments.
1
-
There's similar situation in software space. Case and point, EA. Say you want to buy older NFS title, like Underground 2, the original Most Wanted or Pro Street. EA will not sell you those games, there are no third party resellers, nor is any of these games on Steam or GOG, meaning, if you want to play, you have to find someone, who owns a copy and is willing to part with it, or you have to hoist the colors and Jolly Roger it with a crack, hoping that today's modern system didn't break anything, given, for instance NFS5 Porsche Unleashed, was desinged for 98/ME/XP generation of operating systems!
1
-
1
-
No, that is not considered heartless, that is considered out of touch with reality.
Not everyone can be an entrepreneur! And frankly, no one can be truly successful entrepreneur alone. There is set amount of time in a day. There is only so much, which can be done in those hours. What you're saying, by "Get an extra/better job", or "find something better", or "It's all your fault, you're not trying hard enough!", or "you just have too high expectations, compared to what you can provide."... All of these betray a disconnect between your thinking and reality of time being limited resource. You simply have to sleep for nine hours a day, just to make sure, you won't start dropping your act due to exhaustion a few months down the line. To advance, these days you actually need years, not weeks and months, especially in markets, which aren't as flexible as that of the US.
Look at job postings in some fields. Especially in IT, you'll find absolutely unreasonable demands off people. Ads, seemingly targeting graduates and requiring proficiency and years of experience in multiple coding languages, aren't uncommon. Or take me for example, I, as I stated before elsewhere, am an accountant in search of a job. I happen to also be autistic, which mean's in Czechia, where I live, I can't hold a driver's license (it's outright illegal). Yet, over fifty percent of job listings for my field demand it, regardless of me being able to do literally everything from a PC at home. Where and when are we supposed to gain the documents/knowledge/experience, to fulfill such job requirements only to receive an interview invite. And then we have to impress someone, who doesn't know anything about our field, yet he/she is the gatekeeper. This is the way people get hired and this is a systemic problem, which conservatives tend to overlook, why? Simple, it plays in to their hand and thus they don't want things to change. How are we supposed to find something better, if the system is set to preserve those, who already have everything actually necessary and thus can justify ridiculous demands, sometimes completely disconnected with the work they demand be done. Simple, this has to fall apart eventually, it only gloriously s**ks to live in the interim, which can take decades to pass.
In the eighties and nineties, a guy out of school could come to a factory, ask for a field relevant job and he would get it. Now? A year long selection process, resulting in nobody hired and lost contracts, and employers whining about the quality of workers in the market. They usually start with "it's your fault, you don't get paid enough as a full time janitor, to be able to go to even a free university. Get a degree in this ridiculously specific field and I might hire you. I won't give you a raise during your studies and I won't give you the time off for lectures.". Yes, people, who sound amazingly similarly to you.
That's not heartless, that's just completely out of touch with reality.
1
-
1
-
no, the bail should have been 0... Hell, there should not be bail system at all! You see, if you're sitting in jail, even though you spilled the beans, are not a flight risk (eg. broke), are cooperating with the police, etc. you should be set free to handle your affairs until the trial. Going to jail, because you couldn't meet your money bond on the count of being broke, you're being punished for the offense you're in front of the judge for, while not having your guilt yet established by the court.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Louis, going all bow tie is BS. When dealing with insurance, you are only insured for what is stated in the contract. It's not there, or if there are exclusions, you're not insured against that. So yeah, read and understand the contract, as you should, because there is no other remedy for you. A contract is a contract and in words of the singing lawyer Ivo Jahelka, you sign it, you're on the hook for what ever is in that contract.
When dealing with these insurance leeches, you need to play their game and you play it, by understanding your contractual relationship to the T. That's how you get money out of insurance agency.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Louis, business appraisal is not that hard, as far as physical assets are concerned. Most businesses have some kind of solution, for their accounting needs, be it external accountant, which handles things, or having an ERP and spending some eight hours, learning how different parts of system work, how to automate ammortization, what categories of physical assets there are and marking that down for future use. Best part, this is part of tax/accounting law, that actually doesn't change every few years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
There is a fundamental problem with everything being connected to a third party, be it manufacturer or anyone other, than the person, who owns it. Imagine these kinds of shenanigans with pacemakers. You won't pay subscription, we'll turn it off. You're accused of being a racist (something which is actually not a crime, just acting on it for those reasons) and Amazon turning off your pacemaker (we all know, that Amazon will enter that field eventually). Or imagine you not being able to start your car, because it detected higher than permitted emissions of CO2... Yeah that's in Euro 7!
The problem is, I really don't see many ways out of this. You'd have to reform copyright and patent laws to the extreme. You need to understand, when a company "dies", it's "corpse" doesn't just whither in the sun. Vultures come and tear it apart. That is why we never got FreeSpace 3 and what contributed to such a long hiatus in Star Trek. One company owned one part of the rights, second the other, but you need consent of both, to do anything. And these new owners will want exorbitant fees, if they were to let others use now their property, which encompasses any services being provided, that they bought from a dead company (like Nvidia did with 3dfx SLI), because this way, they can increase their revenue, while having little to no expenses. You'd essentially have to end trade of appreciable intangibles... which would wipe out a lot of worlds GDP, cause there is no way, you could do this in one state or coutnry, if desired effect were to be obtained. And that's before you'll get the "someone will kill you over WiFi attack ads"
1
-
1
-
That is one way of looking at things, however, let me draw Chuck Norris in to this... a few years (decades) back, Chuck was called as expert witness in a case involving the use of firearm against someone unarmed but trained in martial arts. Whether in such circumstances the use was justified. The prossecutor requested a demonstration of effective use of martial arts against someone with a firearm. After four times, when the prossecutor couldn't aim an unloaded sidearm, courtesy of the bailif, at Chuck, before he had Chuck's foot in his chest, the case was decided in favor of the gun holder. So much legal anals
There is a similarity here. Much like with martial arts. Unless the person in question show's signs of his condition (be it kimono with a black belt or unstoppable caugh), one can't tell, whether the other person is dangerous or not. There is a considerable portion of infected people, who are completely asymptomatic and thus may appear harmless, but can actually be harmful to be around. That combined with a standing order (if still enforced) could lead to exonoration. There is a major pandemic about. There are people on the fringes of the society, who refuse to wear masks/vaccinate, who actually do spread the desease. Not all of them, but they are the more common ones.
If we take all of this in to consideration, Could a reasonable juror find, that it was someone could believe, he/she is in imminent mortal danger? Given the general coverage of the epidemic by the media, I'd say yes and therefore the use firearm of firearm should be considered legal and thus called for. (obligation to retreat aside, as that isn't really an option here, given the shooter's occupation.)
1
-
Yeah, there are problems with urban sprawl, but people, who advocate against use of cars are delusional. Sure, they may heat the planet a little. Well, there aren't really alternatives present, because you don't buy a car to get from A to B, you buy that car to get from A to B at your convenience. I live in the city of Brno. I can buy a single ticket and ride it in the city and out of it, even leaving my county and country. I can take a tram or a bus from basically anywhere in the city to anywhere in the city at any time of day, but I'm limited at some times of day, because the bus runs once in an hour or every thirty minutes (depends on the day). It is still not enough. Imagine you live somewhere in the city and you have to wait thirty minutes in cold, because you've missed your bus, when your teeth ache like there's no tomorrow. That is the reason people buy cars. So they don't have to deal with this shit and no amount of public transport refinement is going to change that. And believe me, there is no way that in my city, there aren't at least fifty people a day, who have to get in to their cars and drive to emergency dental facility every day. No my city has about 400k. Imagine how many people need to do the same in NYC.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@radekmojzis9829 Well, on the other hand, we have to pay conversion fees, whenever we're trading with our immediate neighbours, three of which have Euro already, in a pro export economy, that, like most economies in the world, trade's the most with their emediate neighbours. And can't take advantage of West African (CFA) Frank, which is linked on fixed rate to Euro... And until next jaunuary had to pay our income tax based of employer expences, not agreed wage and have effectively the highest taxation of labour in the world... Yeah, fun country the Czech Republic :D
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Louis, Politicians never have actual solutions. The only people, who have solutions are engineers and specialists in their respective fields. What would I do?
Well, step number one. Suspend the market. For the duration of the problem, which need's to be overcome, there must not be any changes to prices. In times of crisis volatility increases, and since revenues of ones are costs of others, and costs are much less downward flexible, what you get is increased inflation. It may look small, but in places like New York, that will be enough to cause such social breakup, as we see. For this reason, prices must be artificially frozen. The same would happen to Utilities and Internet access, with the added caveat, that the government would pay them directly. Right now, access to infrastructure and information is key, so the government would have to handle this.
Step two. All loans are suspended. Their repayment is postponed and no interest is accrues on any loaned money for the duration of the crisis. As long as obtaining money is made artificially harder or impossible, any investor has no right to achieving any growth of his portfolio on those investments, that are in the affected sector. If real economy isn't growing, financial markets shouldn't either, because there is no source of that wealth, and we're back to inflation problem from before.
Step three. Handouts. I know, how unpopular this would have been, especially in the US. Every person, who could prove he lives in a particular area would be given a set amount of money to suffice him for basic necessities, those being food, beverages (not just water) and clothing. Plus, any one would be able to ask for money for medicine, they require. Same would apply for any reasonable repairs. These two sets of money would be paid out backwards against receipts.
Step four. slow start of local economy. Unemployed would be called upon to help out in hospitals and other places, which deal with increased volume of demands for their normally provided goods and services. University students would also be pulled in to service, most importantly medics, their studies extended by one to two years free of charge on all universities. This would never be compensated for.
Step five. Distribution of firearms. These steps would eventually fail. They could deal with a smaller crisis, but ultimately, the only thing, that can keep people in check, is fear. Knowing, that every person around them is carrying, not that they just may carry, will provide a disincentive to violence, and will swiftly deal with violence, once it erupts. It's not nice, it's not a good solution, but at this point, you've run out of less painful options. Just as you said Louis, there is not a whole lot to do, once you're in the rapids in a canoe with a hole in the middle and no paddle.
Step six. Restart of the economy and slow shift back to normal. When things begin to calm down, different activities would be gradually removed from restrictions, starting with those, which stabilize the most populous sectors, allowing them to build up some money, which then can move up the ladder and help restart the economy from the ground up. Just like when you're building a house, you begin with the foundations, not the roof. While this is phase is going on, tools are being made available to prevent some of the problems from occurring again. First of these, would be a multiplicator of taxes on any unoccupied property and a couple of thousands inspectors hired, to check this, including door busting gear. Any and all business real estate would be subject to inspection. The idea is, that increased costs of ownership of unoccupied space would incentivize leasing it out, because at this point, you're saving money even when leasing for a dollar. Otherwise, the building would show up on the market eventually, because nobody can maintain the those costs long term. The city would buy these abandoned buildings, if no one else did for a while, and repurpose it, in to what is needed in the city, such as more decent quality housing.
Welcome, to the desert of real.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Not really. It depends on the titles you want to play. For instance, I want to play some ANNO 1800 and have I5 3330 processor paired with 1070TI I managed to score never used and 16 gigs of Kingston DDR3 memory. The game get's unplayable by midgame, because my computer just can't handle the title. I am fortunate, that it is the sole title that happens in, but I am still bottlenecked by that processor. Eventually, I will have to build a new machine from the scratch, because of how outdated my motherboard is (we're on DDR5 for RAM now).
So check what you want to use that computer for. If we're talking light tasks, you're right. I wouldn't be worried about Excel spreadsheets on a Sempron either, but highger end stuff, that these companies want to push? Have to buy newer... And not buy laptops for gaming PERIOD! What I'm more wirried about, are operating system requirements and what happens, when Steam drops support for Win10.
1
-
1
-
The problem with looking at your log for IPs and what those IPs loaded runs into dead end. One, you can always claim, that you're on IPv4 behind your NAT and you don't know, which device was accessing your service and you can't prove, that it was one of my devices, only that my infrastructure was used somewhere along the lines. I could literally run a Pi, connected to no external interfaces, with no adblock, and on IPv4, you'd not catch me using ad block another device, because you'd not be able to see beyond my external IP address.
1
-
This is actually the correct thing to do You can always hire people, when you need them. You just put it in the contract, that it's for fixed term. Done. This can have limitations, but if you need to do this sixth time in a year with the same person, then this is on you buddy. Same goes, when someone's taking forever to do a job, that's failure to train and again on you. The answer is not to fire the guy, the answer is to train him and to motivate him.
All in all, this all boils down to one question. What kind of business do you want to run? A one man show, which doesn't need to deal with this stuff, or you want to have employees, and then you need to go along with it all the way. And ultimately, you'll need to take a risk with this "maybe", employee, and if it blows up, find a way to make him productive in another way.
Also, how long an email is unread is lame as a productivity measurement. One, employee might only marked as read emails, they are actively working on to be able to distinguish, what to chase and what wasn't touched yet. Better method would be to check someone's response rate. because only responded email were actually actioned. Or you can do a proper ticketting system (this is for a larger shops, but still) and hide the unnecessary data from the person, who's processing it. Customer gives ticket number, processor looks at how long it took to close down a ticket and doesn't see, who worked that ticket. Then, the person can decide on that discount and the employee is safe.
Then there's your rant about employees doing more or less work than others and you, as the harder working employee see it. Well guess what, that's your sign, you should be looking for a new job, because you're the better employee, likely will get a new job, which is the only way you can advance your salary these days.
Also, take some microeconomics courses... going for more is better, because then you have the room to cut back to, when things change. That's not an employer issue.
Really, Louis. And I do mean this seriously. look at Joshua Fluke's videos on companies outside of the EU, such us USA or India, how these implemented surveillance of employees, including placing cameras in peoples residences! And this was in the UK! The company eventually backpeddelled but still. Technology is way too flexible, to disallow only certain abuse. It can circumvent precise bans, meaning, unfortunately, so you have to pour the baby with water, if you want set any boundries. It is you and other employers, who caused this. Legislation is usually not forward thinking. It is reactive.
You might also want to look at statistics. Czechia is all the time chastised for how stringent our labor laws are... we're nowhere near France or Portugal in that regard and have 3% unemployment... and ketp that through covid. By your standards we're basically communism and we put the US in our pocket as far as our labor market's concerned.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
hm... Like it or not, this will require federal intervention. Why? Until recently, work didn't cross state lines and until even more recently, it was in relatively small number of professions, like train drivers, train engeneers, pilots, stewards... But now, with Internet being so ubiquitus and companies realizing, everybody can work from anywhere, especially with Starlink in the ISP game, new rules need to be implemented, because states like Tennesseee, Arkansas or West Virginia are gonna become magnets for young people, wanting to root in, thanks to cheap land for residential development, but the largest companies will remain in NY or Texas.
The way I see it, this mess can be solved in two ways.
One, the higher tax has precedence, but lower tax has priority. The most, that would have been payed is the higher rate, which then would be split betwene the states. For example, let's take states of Colorado and North Carolina, as it is easier, because they have flat tax rates. If a guy lived in Colorado, but worked for a company that is based in North Carolina, he would pay 5,25% tax, which would then break in to 4,63% for Colorado and the difference of 0,62 for North Carolina. And it would boost demand for accountants, because other states don't have flat tax rates and things can become very confusing very fast, as US wide, there are more than one change in tax law per day and accountants in the US can't keep up, so some federal involvement would be necessary even on state and municipal level for the system to work (I'm not talking full on dictatorship, I'm talking US wide yearly deadline for changes in state and lower tax codes after which all further changes would apply to the next). There is a huge drawback in this, however, because, when the scenario is flipped, all tax goes to North Carolina and Colorado get's nothing, but still has administrative expences with the company based in the state. This could be solved by splitting the tax evenly, but that would create incentives in state's with higher taxes to create special taxes on companies, that employ remote workers, to supplement this loss of income, which would likely translate in to lower wages for remote workers, which in turn would unleash a tsunami of discrimination litigation.
Alternatively, a rule could be established, that taxes follow the contract and a rule for this rule, that only those state laws, in which either entity reside's are applicable. Meaning, if a guy worked for a New York company in Texas, he would have a choice, betwene Texas and New York law systems in terms of work and tax, however, this create's problems of their own, as a Texas sherriff might have to administer New York law, which, jurisdictional questions aside (as this likely violate's states rights), he may lack training for, and he would have to be at least knowlegable about all 51 possible jurisdictions (50 + DC and teritories), which is unreasonable requirement at best. At this point, the sherriff might rather be called Waleker, Texan Federal Labour Ranger. Not to mention the fact, that the core problem remain's, one of the states get's nothing, even though it does have expences with either that worker or the company. And not to mention the option of unions! How they are hated in the South aside, one company could end up with two seperate unions with very different scopes of power in one state, because of how they are rooted in NY and Texas law is very different, plus either would likely lack jurisdiction over contracts signed under the other law. Furthermore, such system is less predictable, as our guy from Texas could move to Florida for a while (like, taking care of elderly family member came up), and if the contract was signed under Texas law, a new contract would have to be signed, as Texas jurisdiction is no longer available.
I really don't like income tax. Not because it's a tax, but because it doesn't tax capital equally to labour. And it's actually harder to get the money out of people and corporations alike, when compared of sales tax, property tax or VAT. When you tax consumption, you tax all means of production and thus reduce inequality, while filling the state coffers. Plus, the little guy has greater controll over his taxation, as he can simply consume less, as long as he can survive.
1
-
Yeah, I hate banning symbols. Sure, they "propagate", an idea to some extent. However, the problem is not the symbol, it's the idea. I believe, that symbols are reminding us of what was done in the past and of lessons to be learned, and if you remove the symbol, you'll only obscure the lesson. Make it harder to learn and learn the right, or at least right-ish meaning. That is why I disagree with banning nazi flag or, more recently, confederate battle flag. Hell, if I were US citizen, I would get my self both, the era appropriate union flag and the confederate battle flag and I would raise them side by side. As these symbols have a lesson to teach and I feel, like they can't do it one without the other.
1
-
1
-
It's not that simple. While you're right in terms of law power (remember, even the EULA is a technically a law with limited scope, because it govern's a relationship based on contract between two or more parties), there is also specificity point of view, that is in play. That is why you can have laws that contradict constitutions and lawyers claim, they explain it...
For Instance, part of Czech constitution is the Bill of rights, whose section 2, article 17, number 3) states "Censorship is inpremissible" and yet, §184, 40/2009 Sb, Trestní zákoník (criminal code) states, that defemation is a crime and therefore punishable. But that is censorship of a particular experession, specifically one, that is not truthful and has harmful effect on someone, but it is censorship none the less and now what? Say I defame someone and they report me to the police. Should the constitution be taken as the law to adjudicate this under, because it's the stronger law? Under this theory, I should have the right to speak even lies, that harm others, because denying me that right would censor me. Or should the criminal code be the law to adjudicate this under, bacause it's the more specific one? Generally specificity wins. And this can go into even crazier situations, if you go through the laws.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Louis, while I do agree, that ads for wife import is human trafficking and absolutely horrible practice, that should have gotten the entirety of Alphabet to Hague. Consider the flip side of the coin here. You're talking from war torn countries (though probably not just from there), is it really such a bad thing? Take Ukraine as an example. Russians were deliberately targeting power infrastructure in a country, that mostly heats electric (as far as I know). Wonder why. We have planting season and after that, harvest season. If what Peter Zeihan claims, as far as Russian strategy is, turns out to be true, Ukraine will not be able to feed itself, because Russians will target agricultural infrastructure next. In a situation like this, human trafficking saves lives, because you get people out of region, that cannot sustain them into one that can. Meaning, this was not to right time to call this out. Keep it on a back burner and bring it out, when there won't be a war/famine anywhere. I reckon, it will take a decade.
1
-
Yeah, all of this is confusing. And people don't use their own heads often enough too. For instance. When covid hit Czechia hard for the first time, I went to a shop to buy something. Small shops, two registers, only one of them had a worker on it, and the store owner was screaming at people, who didn't exactly queue at two meters apart... When she could have opened the other register and make the queue go faster, limiting exposure. But no. She screamed at us, for wanting to access goods, which were in the area, where the queue had formed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Non competes are not inherently bad. Problem is, the US has horrible legislation in this field. Where I live, you can have a noncompete aggreement as part of the job, so that you can't work in the same field and/or in the same role for a period of time. However, that comes witha B. That you are paid salary by that former employer, as if you were working for that employer and unless you breach it, you're fine, and the only way you breach it, is to breach it meaningfully (say you're an accountant and worked for accounting company, you can't go to another accounting company as an accountant, but can go work as accountant in a logistics company, or go work in a accounting company as an IT guy) and the only thing, that you can lose as a result of a breach, is the income, that you would have gained.
That being said, even we don't see much in terms of income raises. Just before covid hit, we were running like a rocket ship, well beyond our long term economic capabilities. For literally decades, companies have been crying, how much we need more immigration and make the state smaller, because there are no people left in the market... And there probably really arent, given we're running around 3% unemployment long term and even covid didn't budge with it. After graduation, I couldn't find a job for two years and, after having a mental breakdown from my boss, another year. All the while employers were crying, how they can't find the people, promissing, how they'll teach everybody everything... while turning away first time job seekers... There is a video on youtube from 2017, it is in Czech by Český Rozhlas. Let me translate the headline, which I can assure you speaks of the content very descriptively and accurately. "Analyst: Companies offer minimum wage, and wonder about being ignored.". It is, as if companies didn't compete for the employees. If there is such a low unemployment, that company can't find an employee, it must take, who is available, pay them well and teach them on the job, everything that person needs. Yet that is universally not what we see.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm not really sure, if this is feasible. I mean, you never could replace a faulty cell even in an old laptop battery. So what I'd do in Tesla's place, is, I'd still be adamant about replacing the battery as a whole, but offered a buyback of the old battery, so that it can be disassembled and OK components reused in refurbished batteries at a lower price. (not everybody will want a completely new battery). The added benefit would have been, that the car could be turned around faster, cause, you know, don't need to wait for component level repair, just take out the battery and put in an on hand new or a refurbished one.
1
-
Yeah, I think US companies will begin to value unions in a couple of years. For instance, Boeing had massive problem with their new site, I believe also in Alabama, where they are currently moving their production precisely because of unions... Well, their new plant has underpaid employees, who didn't give a damn, and as result, there were so many technical difficulties stemming from poor quality controls (you know, cause underpaid employees), airlines throughout the world refused to accept the plane, if it was built at this new site.
1
-
Let me get this straight.. according to this article, the EU and the UN could be labeled as terrorist organisations, because they recommend use of digital protection on the Internet... I've used TOR, I've used TrueCrypt, I use uBlock Origin, I use public wifi, because I refuse to pay 30% of my salary for used data outside of the EU, I have a NAS, I run HTTPS everywhere... I've always been joking about going to jail for crimes against humanity, but I never thought, that my everyday practices could actually lend me there... especially on false charges no less, because my everyday routine is something "terrorists" do!
1
-
Louis, you don't understand it. Why are there people, who do nothing, hell even sabotage companies, and remain on payroll even at absolutely unimaginable salaries to most? It's simple. Another company doing the same shit could take customers away, causing loss of revenue greater than their collective salaries.
Is that a problem as to limiting market and innovation? Yes, is that a bad thing? Not really... It depends market to market. Not to mention, that innovation is not always actual innovation. Cases like Elisabeth Holmes or Hyperloop are excellent examples, where "innovation", had already eaten huge amounts of money, not just from tax payers, that could have been routed to more effective, already existing solutions to actual or soon to be manifesting problems, such as coming electricity scarcity caused by inevitable phasing out of coal power plants due to perceived danger of climate crisis, which need replacing by nuclear plants, given similarities of output of these power generating methods and irresponsible drive towards electric mobility, which will put extreme strain on the grid. The problem with more people going out "innovating", means there are many more snake oil salesmen among genuine innovators and it's those snake oil salesmen, who manage to capture the most of the crowd. Not to mention, that innovation for innovations sake is also not good universally. Just look at differences in GUI between Windows 10 and 11. Does moving the start menu to the center of the bar improve efficiency when working with the machine, or simply confuse current users, who had been accustomed to start menu being in the lower left corner since Windows 95, some thirty years ago? Cause that's being sold as innovation too! Is it innovation, that user replaceable batteries were removed in favor of internal ones, for which you need precision tools to replace, not to mention replace on the fly? Is it innovation, to tie everything to the cloud, where local instance is possible, be it self hosting key software or completely contained instance? Does it make sense, to buy newer locomotive, that can run 230 KM/h and tow more, when everywhere you send it, track maximum speed is 160 KM/h and an older model with that top speed is significantly cheaper can already tow train, that completely fills longest tracks in marshaling yards in the country/on the continent? Is it really innovation for a farm, buying a tractor with better miles per gallon, that they can't fix them selves and have to rely on expensive authorized service center? Or is it innovation, buying robotic combines, when a man has to monitor, where the combine is going and, though in rare cases, use remote control to correct the combines heading? Is it innovation to go electric cars, when you're still burning coal to make electricity? Isn't that just steam power with extra steps? Well, given approach of companies, such as Microsoft or John Deer, that is innovation, but do we have higher value in the products they sell out of these innovation? I'd argue not, but their revenues sure seem to indicate they do... And now imagine some 20% of US workforce "innovating" to get by. How many rent-seeking and downright fraudulent "innovations" will there be on the market, that is hard to navigate as is? Odds are, companies would end up buying these "get money out of peoples pockets" "innovations", and we'd be left with worse than before we started. Innovation, so that you provide better value to your customers has been gone for some twenty years Louis, now it's all about building recurring income.
And look at it from employee's point of view. There is an agreement between employee and employer, that certain type of work will be provided at certain salary paid on date X at purchasing power Y. Why would an employee do work of other roles in the company, when he/she doesn't get extra real value compensation from it? And why should that employee have to be exposed to risk of losing his/her job, when the job he/she agreed to do is being done to objectively satisfactory levels, as outlined in the contract/agreed upon?
The answer, is neither should make change, because that's how both parties should be satisfied, per terms of contract.
1
-
And what about the fact, that employees have right to privacy? What about the fact, that the computer used for this in their homes, is usually in the same network? I know, tin foil fool talking here, but I really don't think that the employer has the right to know, what's going on on the remote network, or what's going on in the employee's house. I really don't think that employer is entitled to this, even for as beneficial reasons as those, which you have stated. Rather, he should measure results categorize those and look for commonalities in them.
There is another question to answer. Should the employer discipline and employee, who doesn't do anything, when at home or at work, for long periods of time, while all the assigned work is done? (happened to me once) I'd say not! One could try to funnel more work to that guy, but shouldn't the employee get higher salary then? He's providing more to the company, but he has no incentive to do so and no compensation for this extra work! So he'll likely quit.
The core question here has to come from a different point. I'd say, that what need's to change is remuneration for jobs. What I'd like to see is a system, where there is a monthly "retainer" to establish basic cooperation between employer and employee and every task carried out to be awarded some amount of money. And let the employee do, what he want's, pay him, for what he did and if employer thinks it's not enough, end the relationship. Lawyers work this way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Louis, fee credit cards are not a scam. You need to do some napkin math to determine, whether the card is worth it to you, but it is useful. I currently hold two credit cards. One gives me 1% towards retirement benefits (we don't have as advanced credit card market as the US has) and would cost me some 50 CZK a month, if I wouldn't use it every day, hence I qualify for the card being free, because I run well over triple of the requirement. My second card is about 200 USD a year, but it's a travel card, meaning it carries concierge service and more importantly, travel insurance. Meaning I can feel safe, while abroad, be it on vacation or on a business trip, for which a shitty boss doesn't buy me travel insurance (worked for such A-hole in the beginnings of my career), even though it's his duty according to the law, that if something happens to me and someone were to call me an ambulance over in the US, I won't end up member of medical indebtedness victims club. I'm eyeing a card that would give me 1% back on home depot-esque stores for when I'll have a house, because I know, that I will run at least 60k CZK a year on renovations and materials too, at which point the card would be net benefit for me, in spite of 600 CZK annual fee. You just have to run the numbers man.
1
-
Well, Louis, you're not as bad at business as you imply here... You may be terrible at HR, but here I'm not surprised about your confusion.
The problem is, there is a lot of psychology in trading. As a result marketing companies, that don't have actual working products, seek out the money and, since they are essentially only very effective sales and nothing else, they outcompeet you, who has actually built something, that work's, on the bid, securing funding for a company, which will inevitably fail, because it's either failing on or outright lacking the product/service to sell. Sometimes, it goes as far as denying the laws of physics.
Look at Hyperloop, for instance, You get Elon's sales capabilities, so there is no problem getting the funding, but if you look at the science and realise, what Hyperloop is from engeneering standpoint, you'll understand, why it can't be done. And then you'll get fanboys of the project, who will defend the idea to the point of denying the laws of physics, because Elon told them, it will work, and people with same approach to stuff will support these ideas, be it with purchase of the product or service, or outright investing in the thing. Or electric planes, Elon him self admitted, that in order to get the range from such plane, to fly, he'd need the plane's wieght on takeoff to be 70% just batteries... which kind of make's landing such plane rather problematic. It is for precisely this weight reason, because planes are extraordinarily heavier on takeoff, that planes have to dump fuel, if they pass safe landing wieght limits. The gear might actually collapse, because of that extra weight. Meaning, an electric plane, that's majestically flying through the sky, would likely never be economically feasable, because it looses capacity on the count of being capable of safely landing. To ilustrate this. Imagine flying a 747 or an A380, with total passenger capacity of 30 due to weight constrictions. Yeah, and such ideas get the green light from investors and governments alike, because global warming has some damn good PR and is an actual major problem to solve. A bunch of marketing heavy guys, like Elon Musk, exploit the psychological component of the situation and simply profiteer from sale of '"solution", that is economically, or outright scientifically, impossible to implement. And yet, people, who have the ability to divert the money, sometimes even elected ones, don't do their math right on the subject, or outright join in on this, building political capital off support for these useless "solutions". If this remind's you of someone banned from youtube and other social media platforms, yep. It's Alex Jones all over again, the only difference is, that Elon doesn't create the threat, to which he's selling a solution. I use Elon, because he is probably the most visible person to point this stuff out, but there are scores of mobs of people like him. All of these people competing with you for money of people, who trade on the market, and governments alike, and who don't do extensive research of the ideas they support with their money. They aren't interested, in actual ROI, but rather on perceeved ROI, which, unfrotuantely, isn't based off real life context. As a result, the stock market doesn't represent real economy, the devide between it and real economy is only growing, and people, who actually have sensible, but not so bombastic or revolutionary ideas for solutions, don't get the money they need to fund their projects.
Another idea, that is fortunately getting traction, but one that also make's the selection process even more difficult, is longer term ROI. It realizes one key idea, that while company is growing, it can't be proffitable, because everything earned is/should be reinvested in the company itself. Problem is, this combined with what I stated above, lead's to a motherlode of money being wasted on the market by people, who didn't properly think about the company they are investing in.
About Uber. You are WRONG. While it is true, that the car was purchased by the driver and it's serviced and maintained by the driver and the car need's to be insured etc. etc.. Well, same hold's true, if you hire a car. It still need's to be insured (at least where I live, car owner's insurence is mandatory) and everything, because even the guy leasing the car, in this case with himself as a driver, need's to make a profit and therefore wouldn't (psychological influence excluded) be willing to lease for compensation, which wouldn't cover his costs. Therefore, if UBER get's fully autonomous cars, they could ditch the driver's sallary (or at least the portion for actual driving) and set up a maintenance facility to laverage economies of scale, making the maintenance costs low enough or even lower than what a driver would demand for maintaining his car. Therefore they could become profitable, because fewer people could tend to a larger fleet of vehicles in circulation, lowering the largest expense on most income and expenses statement. In theory, unless we're talking catastrophic vomiting escapades, which would render the car impossible to maintain, there is actually a way to make this massively profitable for the company, not so much for everyone else, because all the variables here can be influenced by the compnay. Silf driving car ban/demand for driver to be present, when car is in operation? Well, you could lobby against such legislation. Not enough money? Make an IPO or try to sell more shares. Yes, it is a gamble for both the investor and the company, but one that actually has a businessplan, which could work, if the idea hold's and is not dependent on something, that literally can't be controlled, like the ammount of materials needed to invest in the plane or the impossible task of maintaining near vaccume in a tube serveral hundred miles long, regardless of the number of sections.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As for, whether your system of hiring is exploitative, it can be. Key is, what is the job about? If you let a guy fix a board and he fixes it, hell even if he worked for you for one day, I'd say that's fine, as long as the work is not for only one day or one timer in a project. With you it's fine, because you have actual paying job (and you could pay for that one day at reduced or even full rate) lined up after the interview. If I were a director, hiring a cameraman, I'd go with him somewhere and let him film me, se how he handle's the gear. This is fine, because there is this movie, he's going to film when hired. But then there are cases such as those, Joshua Fluke point's to, where a company let's a junior developer build a database or a site, uses that site with little to no alterations and doesn't hire the guy. That is exploitative.
1
-
Louis, I feel you. Yeah censorship, simply because it's private is a problem, ont hte other hand, as companies, they need to evade litigation. Even if the government didn't act on this, there is a chance, that someone could sue for some kind of damages as a result of something similar. let's say, that someone would use Twitter to call a hit on a synagog and a bunch of people died. Shouldn't such communication be silenced? And since there is good likelyhood, that this person/group will continue on different media, shouldn't all these media be allowed to censor that person? They aren't obligated to provide public service, so that affirmative defence is out and the companies should have a way of dodging litigation, resulting from actions of effectively third parties, because, otherwise through allowing comunication to be carried out over their network, they could be considered complicit in the act and thus face the same charges as those, who carried out the act them selves. If what happened was criminal, They would actually be drawn in as coconspirators. ISPs could claim, that they don't track user traffic and thus couldn't know about the atttack and thus are off the hook, but what about companies, who's literal business model is centered around what people think, talk about and do together and selling that info to ad agencies? That defence is gone like that. Not to mention, there are litigation costs regardless of lawsuit outcome. So shouldn't companies have the right to do this, if they do so avoiding a lawsuit? There need's to be some kind of safe harbour provision even for this, because otherwise, companies could simply point to a threat of litigation and they would have a reasonable excuse, you can't argue much against.
And before you say, "But nobody would sue over that!", think again, Pepsi, co. was sued over not delivering a harrier fighter jet they promised in an ad! In the US all kinds of litigation is possible! I realise, this is a devil's advocate argument, but this too is a thing to consider.
Then there is infrastructure problem. Sure, you could get a bunch of friends together and create a mesh-esque style system, which would be accessed as a website, but that still need's to have decent speeds, where your individual servers will be placed. I have seen very few ISPs, that would provide symetric or even inverse data plans to consumers. So there may be other hurdles to overcome in real world too.
And one more thing. Most people, who subscribe to people like you, Eli, Crosstalk Solutions or even LTT, are above average computer literate. We know how to block ads and do that with religious vigor. Keeping any ads in the video doesn't drop a cent in ad revenue from most of your subscribers.
1
-
1
-
@rossmanngroup Can't agree with you there, Louis. There are entire companies built around Youtube. Just look at Linus Tech Tips and it's sister channels. The guy built a company around video production around Youtube videos. A company thirty people strong. So, I'd say, as I mentioned in another comment, that youtubers are entreprenauers, not just freelancers (I know, subtle difference, but still) or outright businessmen.
No, we as audience are not the product. It may seem that way, however, product usually can't make the choice of not getting sold. Here you can make that choice, by going elsewhere. Sure, you'll lose the content, however, you can find different content available through different means.
What you are suggesting, Louis, is actually illegal. When a group of companies or entrepreneurs start to work together, to achieve something, instead of competing with each other, that is called cartel. US has entire field of laws regarding anti-trust, so this wouldn't work. Google, a monopoly, would cite anti-monopoly laws to maintain it's position (que the Senate Ironic scene from Star Wars).
1
-
@koketsok1513 Sure, but that means, youtube doesn't have to be the only source of income for a person. Look at Crosstalk Solutions, who essentially use youtube instead of advertising, Chriss said some time ago, that youtube bring's him customers for the IT services he's providing. I don't know, whether Tom Lawrence from Lawrence Systems uses monetization, but if he did, he'd only have an extra revenue stream to his company, while (I presume) also increasing his business through improved visibility of his company. Or what about Stormware? This Czech company produces accounting software and uses youtube to get video tutorials on how to use it for those, who bought it, saving money on teaching operators on how to use the system. Sure, their customer could buy that service too, but everyone thinks, that the employees will simply learn by working and doesn't want to invest in them... well at least initially.
As I mentioned elsewhere, youtubers aren't employees, they are businessmen and, unfortunately, such is the nature of the beast. In business, there are bigger and smaller, stronger and weaker players, and the stronger player, which youtube is, has the power to get what they want out of the deal. Question then arises, whether it's worth doing business with someone, who only gives you this kind of cooperation or service, or go to someone else, or maybe even completely change the heading of that business. All the concerns you wrote are legit, and perhaps need's some redressing, perhaps through changes in copyright or limiting the freedom to negotiate a contract for the stronger player, if their strength becomes too big, but that is a different discussion, however, for the case at hand, all of it is also irrelevant, because as a business, it is entirely up to you, what business ventures you'll pursue and what tools and other business ventures you'll utilize in that pursuit. And we know, that betting on one card isn't the smartest of decisions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
And to answer your question. What are youtubers? Alphabet is getting cash off youtubers, but they are not employees, I would argue they aren't contractor per se either. What I would argue, is that youtubers are entrepreneurs and businesses and, sadly, this kind of behavior is normal in business relationships. For example, from what I've heared, most french companies demand payment six months before they provide you service and won't pay any sooner, than six months after you provided them a service. And this is becoming a standard in companies, that trade with France, and are in weaker position, as either a nation or company. Such is the nature of the beast, that in (underregulated) free market capitalism, the stronger can dictate terms and conditions with no regard for every other stakeholder in business being forged. This happened to my father, who had transportation company. We were handling logistics for a number pumping station chains including the Royal Dutch Shell, who at the time had the strictest conditions to follow. However, our main and biggest contract got snatched by some Polish companies, when Poland started to subsidize fuel, and Shell could do little to nothing for us. One would expect, that well functioning partnership would be maintained, as quality service provided would justify some premium to be had, especially given that service was transportation of dangerous stuff like petrol, diesel and kerosene, but no. Partner demanded lower costs, we literally couldn't do that, lest facing bankruptcy and the rest is history. The company is gone and dad is facing lifetime of having no money, regardless of how much he'll make working in whatever field. The same can happen to every youtuber or company, that uses youtube or any big platform as their main source/intermediary of revenue. The platform owner could demand a bigger cut, that could become so big, a youtuber could be faced with very unpleasant probem. Chose one and only one:
1) return to days of youtube as a hobby... with a couple of millions subscribers.
2) Give up on new production, as he/she can't ever recoup the investments made to create new content, not to mention, that in some cases people might not make equivalent of minimal wage, which at least in theory, should cover basic necessities of living, meaning this person should in theory starve to death, if he doesn't change careers.
3) create meaningless content that draw's traffic (like cat or dog videos, which, to be fair, have recently gone up in terms of quality and meaning)... ps, comment sections under these videos are downright therapeutic.
Or 4) find a niche audience and go full Alex Jones on them, catering to their specific points of view or, in less extreme cases interests. which has far reaching consequences, which might be unintended, but are destructive none the less (I mean 2016 elections stand testament. Never before in US history, were other party candidates so universally hated and the crack went and is still going down the middle, because certain media only cater to some world views). And there that youtuber could contribute to the crack spreading ever wider, because he has become his own media in a way.
None of the four opitons benefit neither the creator, nor the end customer, in case of that last one, the society as a whole may suffer, and the platform will simply up the ante again, as more as possible, because as niche audiences leave for new places, where to place their old and new content. Where to find their content won't eventually be deemed "unsuitable" for the platform and measures will be made, so that this content is made unavailable. Be it shadow banning, demonetization, or outright censorship of certain topics, or simply misuse of copyright. It's certain pi project today, tomorrow, it just may be alcohol ads and the day after, computer guides, tutorials and arguments supporting the right to repair, and the day after, subliminal messages urging us to bey new eye phone from Momcorp.
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is not that bad. Why" This is solvable with proper integrated public transport system. In Czech Republic, we have a number of these. I can get on a bus in the tiniest hamlet in Sourh Moravian county, change to a train on the mainline and get to a city within two hours... From pretty much anywhere in an area twice as alrge as NYC and Long Island combined! Brno main train station is where most of offices are these days and I can change to a tram, bus trolley bus, or another train, to get where my job is. So, I'm at work in about two hours. And can work from train, because there is Internet (and even buses get it these days) as part of fare. Now it ain't perfect. There are dead spots and Internet service on board is slow, but it work's. We are a bit more expencive than most, but it work's and is still cheaper than using a car. Along the mainline, I can even commute to work betwene cities! All of this with a single ticket, single fare. Prague is even crazier in this, as there are buses, trams, trains, subway and even some boats integrated.
Now, I think there is a reason to be slightly more optimistic (comming from a person, who's constantly been accused of being a pesimist), is New York's subway system. If New York City and neighbouring counties integrated their carriers in to a single system, extended the subway, so that one could access all of Long Island with it and Connect it to multiple railroad stations for changing transport, one could reduce commute time significantly, thus opening new land with good access to these jobs. Sure, some people would have to move and have longer commute, but integrated public transport system can offset these extra costs. The answer is interoperability and harmonised connections.
I realise that New York City is huge and there is motherlode of other communities in greater NYC area, but, I beleive, that betwene rail, and subway, using both express and normal service, all of this system could be navigable in one hour. Even going from Montauk to Croton-Hampton. I realise, that this is a challange, but it can be done. Beyond this post, it's about politics.
1