Politics self selects high anxiety individuals that expect relief through process and procedure, regardless of the outcome.
Having everyone work through corporations, instead of individually, reduces irregularity. There's no logical reason to do this, but anxiety doesn't respect logic. Explaining the irrationality of an anxiety just adds to the anxiety.
Unfortunately, most people have a relatively constantly anxiety, regardless of how exactly their concerns are addressed, so there is no limit to the amount of micromanagement politicians seek.
The US left don't seem to understand or care about economics and want to force companies to pay gig workers full benefits. The end result is complete job loss.
Right, yes, that's definitely the problem. Get back to us when the oligarchy class (which, as a green account educated us here just recently, are the ones shouldering "all the risks") aren't lighting cigars with hundred dollar bills, while paying zero taxes.
If companies can't pay a living wage or live up to basic requirements then they are inefficient, pointless companies that have a bad business model.
If companies are premised on the expectation that governments will fill the gap between what the company pays and what people need in order to simply live then those companies are premised on taxpayer funded government handouts.
You probably don't think of yourself as a socialist but what you're arguing for is socialism. And not only socialism but the worst kind of socialism: corporate welfare.
The author of this terrible piece is Gene Marks. Some relevant background information on the writer: "Marks wrote an opinion piece discussing the trend of 'quiet quitting' and described those who engage in the practice as "not taking your job seriously" and called those who decided to just meet their obligations at their jobs, "mediocre employees" and put some of the blame of the "economic slowdown" on those who decided they didn't want to go "above and beyond" for their employees when they saw no reward for their effort." via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Marks#Career
Anxiety
Politics self selects high anxiety individuals that expect relief through process and procedure, regardless of the outcome.
Having everyone work through corporations, instead of individually, reduces irregularity. There's no logical reason to do this, but anxiety doesn't respect logic. Explaining the irrationality of an anxiety just adds to the anxiety.
Unfortunately, most people have a relatively constantly anxiety, regardless of how exactly their concerns are addressed, so there is no limit to the amount of micromanagement politicians seek.
The US left don't seem to understand or care about economics and want to force companies to pay gig workers full benefits. The end result is complete job loss.
Right, yes, that's definitely the problem. Get back to us when the oligarchy class (which, as a green account educated us here just recently, are the ones shouldering "all the risks") aren't lighting cigars with hundred dollar bills, while paying zero taxes.
If companies can't pay a living wage or live up to basic requirements then they are inefficient, pointless companies that have a bad business model.
If companies are premised on the expectation that governments will fill the gap between what the company pays and what people need in order to simply live then those companies are premised on taxpayer funded government handouts.
You probably don't think of yourself as a socialist but what you're arguing for is socialism. And not only socialism but the worst kind of socialism: corporate welfare.
The author of this terrible piece is Gene Marks. Some relevant background information on the writer: "Marks wrote an opinion piece discussing the trend of 'quiet quitting' and described those who engage in the practice as "not taking your job seriously" and called those who decided to just meet their obligations at their jobs, "mediocre employees" and put some of the blame of the "economic slowdown" on those who decided they didn't want to go "above and beyond" for their employees when they saw no reward for their effort." via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Marks#Career
Small aside, this doesn't read right for me? I assume the (the wikipedian) meant '"above and beyond" for their employers"', not employees.
probably