Not everyone is at a point where they are greenfield picking a language for a new project. Sorbet was built by a large organization (Stripe IIRC) and is used effectively by organizations with large Rails codebases. I think Sorbet is a great way to maintain velocity on a large Ruby codebase after the initial velocity benefits of dynamic typing have ceased and the dynamic typing is actually a drain on velocity.
If you want the government to "take care of it citizens", what we actually need is a floor on income (eg. welfare/UBI), not a floor on wages (ie. minimum wage). Minimum wage does nothing for people who are unemployed, of which it's inevitably going to exacerbate.
> Minimum wage does nothing for people who are unemployed, of which it's inevitably going to exacerbate.
Yet more "privatize profits, socialize the costs".
Minimum wage has always trailed living wage. Often by a decade plus. It's always in arrears that it is updated (and several of the last updates have been further and further apart).
Businesses have been able to pay people less than liveable wages, and then when there's an attempt at parity, they scream about how unfair it will be to that untouchable and sacrosanct pillar of American society, the Small Business Owner.
Except I don't recall reading anywhere that a business owner was entitled to profitability.
At a certain point, if your business can't afford to keep up with living wage needs, the solution is to close your doors, not advocate for underpaying people.
Hidden in this is an assumption is that everyone is more than more productive than the "living wage" (whatever that is). In a country that has high living costs and is facing competition from developing countries with far less living costs, I think it's fairly reasonable to say there's a non-negligible population where this assumption doesn't hold. What about those people? For them, raising the minimum wage to the living wage won't increase their income, it'd make it $0 because there's no point in hiring them.
>Yet more "privatize profits, socialize the costs".
You realize I explicitly mentioned "welfare/UBI" in my previous comment? Or do you somehow think it's bad for the government to forcibly transfer wealth by taxing people/companies and then distributing through welfare/UBI, but it's somehow okay for the government to forcibly transfer wealth by mandating that companies pay their workers more?
Low-end jobs aren’t non-existent. The EU still has people working at fast food joints. But the EU mandates paying those people a reasonable amount of money. The US is much more guilty of forcing people in low-end jobs to require government handouts despite being employed.
Anyone working in a full time job of any sort should be able to live without government assistance. The EU’s labour laws come much closer to that than American laws do.
This is misleading. In Denmark at least wages are often set through collective bargaining. Wage inequality and rates of low pay are much lower in Denmark than US. They just achieve it by slightly different means. In this case it is state mandated labour laws which give real power to unions, rather than anti-union (and anti-democratic) labour policies in the US and UK.
Are they forced in? I thought they were given a choice of pursuing a treatment program funded by the state, or getting a more conventional punishment such as jail time.
Spotify has not publicly released any numbers of that kind. It seems the post is quoting some other article [1] that not only doesn't answer my question but even admits that the given numbers are mere speculation. So there is zero basis for the statement in the post above.
The New York Times seems to claim a 70/30 split [1]. However the devil is in the detail as there are plenty of claims from artists of hundreds of thousands of plays resulting in a few dollars being earned. It may be that the split is correct, but that high profile artists are getting a higher rate per stream?
Others claim Spotify is great for being discovered [2] and that this is where its value lies for them (as artists).
Lots of American Exceptionalism in this comment and the replies.
The Norwegian state makes so much money off of oil because of how well they manage the revenues. The US could do the same thing but chooses not to.
The difference between the US and Norway isn’t in the amount of fossil fuel reserves one possesses vs the other. It is in how the money from those resources is used. The US privatizes it while Norway puts it towards the public good.
Their oil per citizen is not equivalent. Norway is producing 0.38 barrels of oil per day per citizen, while US is 0.034. That's over an order of magnitude difference. Could the US do better? Yes. Is Norway well run and has an abnormally high amount of oil per citizen? Yes of course. Yet your claim is still mostly false if US was run just as well.
That is like comparing a toddler to Usain Bolt in a race and saying the toddler could have done better.
The US isn’t even trying to manage any money from its resources in a way that benefits its citizens in the long term. Americans should be furious about how poorly managed the wealth from these natural resources is being managed, but instead seem to think that America is too different from Norway to even consider doing a similar sovereign wealth fund. The same bad arguments get made about healthcare all the time.
> The US isn’t even trying to manage any money from its resources in a way that benefits its citizens in the long term
Different goals. Gas is and has always been (afaik) cheaper for American citizens than for Norwegians. Having more money in your pocket is a long term benefit for Americans.
My understanding is that the various unions view Tesla’s actions as a threat to how labour works in Sweden. There apparently isn’t even a minimum wage in the country as everything is governed by these collective agreements. So if they let Tesla come in and not play by the rules it could open the floodgates for other large corporations to come in and do the same, slowly eroding the system.
Yeah I think that's correct. The unions here are not acting as representatives of Tesla workers to negotiate with Tesla, but rather as cartels trying to prevent two willing parties (Tesla and its employees) from doing business without cutting in the union.
I had no idea that unions could operate like this. I thought unions were tools to gain workers leverage against their employers, which I obviously support. I find this cartel action repulsive and I don't see how it could be done here in the US without violating anti trust.
So you support workers gaining leverage with the help of unions, but when the workers actually try gaining leverage with the help of unions, you call them names. That's not exactly showing "support" is it?
> The unions here are not acting as representatives of Tesla workers to negotiate with Tesla, but rather as cartels trying to prevent two willing parties (Tesla and its employees) from doing business without cutting in the union.
Out of interest, how are the unions trying to cut in? And what exactly are they "cutting in"?
There are laws and there are norms. In Sweden, both are equally important and you'll get left out if you break either. It's sad in a lot of cases, as it removes some individuality, but it's how the country been operating for a long time.
Expecting to run a company against the norms in a culture that so heavily leans on norms is bound to create conflict, which is what we're seeing here.
Laws upheld by the state are the worst good way to maintain order.
A much better way is to have the parties play nice with each other, build trust, and negotiate as equals. This allows for much better and more detailed agreements, for quicker reactions if market conditions changes, and for more flexibility within each economic sector. The fact that the Nordic countries operate in such a way no doubt contributes to these countries both having great standards of living, and being among the best in the world to start and run businesses in.
Tesla doesn't play nice. They don't build trust, and they don't try to negotiate as equals.
True, it is not illegal. It doesn't need to be. We have other ways to keep hostile actors from misbehaving.
Sweden has a small government approach to labour, the idea is that Unions are more agile and closer to the market so they are given the power to negotiate. The legislation is basically "there are no laws, speak to the Unions and sign the agreement". So yes you're correct they aren't breaking any laws, but neither are the Unions for not working for companies without a collective bargaining agreement.
This system has worked well for a hundred years with Sweden ranking highly across most metrics for work satisfaction, happiness, etc... however every now and then an American company comes over and tries to challenge it. These companies get sympathy striked into the ground, sign a collective agreement, and live happily ever after.
The other companies and unions are also complying with the country's laws, and they're exercising their choice to not do business with a company that is choosing to operate in a way that contradicts the existing social structures.
And so do the unions.
The law takes a hands off approach to regulating the conditions of workers, but that goes both ways. If Tesla avoids signing a collective bargaining agreement, the law won’t help the unions force them to, but it also won’t protect Tesla from the unions.
What apparently a lot of commenters don’t know is that in Sweden a lot of things that in other countries are regulated by laws are regulate by agreements between the unions and corresponding organisations for the employers. This an order that both parties prefer, instead of legislations that none of them might be happy with.
It has been like this in Sweden since 1938 (if I remember correctly), and it is unlikely that any American company will be allowed to come in and change that order. I think the last one that tried and failed was Amazon, and before that Toys R Us.
This is one of the fundamental things about Sweden which is really quite weird when you come from the outside. Much of Swedish society runs on "recommendations" (or norms as someone else put it), so technically you don't have to abide by them (i.e. under the thread of the government monopoly on violence, how we enforce laws), but everyone just does it anyway.
This was an interesting experience for me during COVID, where lots of other countries put lots of rules/laws in place, while Sweden just had "recommendations" (and lax ones at that). The way I understood it, it would have been even incredibly difficult/legally impossible for the government to impose some of the same restrictions as in other countries.
It's actually fascinating how well the Swedish society functions without these laws.
I think the Canada thing was an honest oversight. The party in power isn’t even a right wing party. Pretty centrist. They don’t have any motivation to shift the overton window in the “maybe we’re okay with Nazis now?” direction.
I know what you mean but I think there is more context that enables such an oversight to happen.
It feels like a product of the "we have always been at war with Russia" political fluidity when the applause was triggered by claims of fighting Russia in 1940. Today we funnel guns to units wearing SS unit patches with no scandal. There is no international effort for peace. There is no widely held principle that we must turn enemies into allies. Instead there is glee at every Russian death and disinterest, unless useful, in every Ukrainian death. To be anti-war gets you treated as a crank. It makes me feel sick.
One can hope that every single one of the 200+ highly educated members of the elite ruling class of Canada made this “honest oversight”. At least they can claim it after some kind of apologies were made. Not so much for Zelensky who didn’t mention this incident at all, since honoring Nazis is business-as-usual in Ukraine.
Still, I can see how it can benefit the Canadian party too, because the original electorate would either not notice this or accept the apology and forget about it, thus not impacting the status quo, but now they also get the neo-Nazi vote after this wink and nod.
There is a lot of research going into making kidneys without the markers that cause rejection. They hope to make pig kidneys compatible with human transplantation this way.
"This important research, which study leaders say could save many lives in the future, was made possible by the family of a 57-year-old male who elected to donate his body after a brain death declaration and a circumstance in which his organs or tissues were not suitable for transplant."
Ooh, I need to look into this... I assume "donate to science" is an additional opt-in not covered by the regular organ donor designation, but it seems like something where one or more or less inclusive of the other and it'd be cool if we treated them as such.
Like, my organs are kind of crummy, so idk if anyone would benefit from them as a transplant. I just want my body to be useful!
Not sure you can logically own something after you’re dead. Even the cells that comprised you. They came from elsewhere (primarily the grocery store) and were fleetingly you until they weren’t.
