Depends on the year.
Depends on the year.
It actually could. Imagine if salary had increased in accordance to the productivity boosts that automation has brought. Then you could have 3 people, working 2 days a week, sharing a job and being able to live from it. After all, it used to take more than 3 people to do the work a single person does nowadays.
How does that make a moral difference? The dogs they’re (were) eating were bred for meat just like pigs and cows.
I’m sorry but laziness definitely exists. This is just going too far.
Yeah pretty much. Not sure what you’re getting at? There are many projects with way more than 500 people involved.
I’ll have what this guy is having
So if terrorist government A kills civilians, it’s okay for murderous government B to take revenge by killing more civilians? Why does it matter where these people live, the only thing that matters is to stop killing them, depriving them of their freedoms and rights and hey, maybe even try to give them a happy life?
may feel cool as hell, definitely doesn’t look it though. Looks like poor self control and dumbness.
I’m sorry but there’s just no way that anecdote is true. I refuse to believe it.
At least we aren’t all competing to make the highest voted dumb joke or pun on every single post yet.
Those are two different things. One is acknowledging uncontrolled inmigration is a negative thing for a country. The other one is not giving a shit because it’s more important to help people fleeing life threatening situations, even at the expense of one’s own privileged quality of life. At this point it’s important to note that rich countries’ quality of life is only made possible by unfair distribution of planetary resources and human exploitation of the same people being denied entry.
People have different ideals. For some, a more fair distribution of resources is more important than rich fucks remaining rich fucks. Btw, any problem immigrants may cause is already being caused 1000x over by the absurdly rich.
I think the downvotes are for the other opinions. Nobody denies that inmigration for the sake of inmigration is damaging for a country.
Well, can you tell me why it would be a good thing?
This would only deter people who would otherwise plan a child. Those people tend to have fewer children in the first place and are more likely to take good care of them. I actually think the best approach to reducing the world’s population increase is a heavy investment in education including reproductive education, especially in poorer countries which are the ones still actually growing fast.
I disagree. Workers should be compensated for being at a specific location if and only if that physical presence is necessary to do their work. If that’s the case, I think the commute and other costs should be carried by the employer. But if the employee is going to the office simply because they prefer to or enjoy it more, that adds zero value to the work they’re doing compared to wfh employees and should not be compensated differently.
For me it would heavily depend on where the office is located relative to my apartment, and how long my commute would turn out to be. More than 15-20 minutes by bike is a no-go (I live in Europe).
Also assuming the requirement to be in the office isn’t a huge red flag for bad management in the first place.
Some shows I really enjoyed in recent years:
They’re in no particular order, and I’m sure I’m forgetting a lot, but I definitely think all of the above are must watch.