JasSmith

I literally quoted that exact passage. Did you read my comment before you replied or did you just rage post when your world view was threatened?

Foltz claims that she received a $92,000 annual salary while men with the same duties and qualifications received an annual salary of $115,000.

Foltz also claims that SpaceX uses different job titles for the same position as a way to pay women and minorities less than their white or male counterparts, TechCrunch reported.

This is an empty claim. She didn’t even have the same job titles as the people she was comparing herself against. There are a thousand reasons one person can be paid more than another. Often it’s just negotiating prowess. Often it’s the responsibility of the job title, and the risk and hours that entails. Often it’s tenure at the company, or social skills. Her claim amounts to, “pay me more because I have a vagina.” No.

Wikipedia is a good example but they actually employ designers and developers. I think the secret sauce is paying people to build great software. So a non-profit with donations could absolutely work.

Open license software will never beat paid software in the consumer space. I know that’s a controversial opinion, but it’s been proven a thousand times. There’s no way to beat the user experience of Reddit when they have a hundred experienced UX designers doing nothing but optimising for engagement. We think the overall experience is worse, which is why we’re here, but we are the minority. Lemmy still hasn’t figured out basic problems like what happens to the user experience when an instance defederates from another. The user had no control over that, but suddenly their subscribed communities have disappeared without notice or explanation. Now they have to find another instance to subscribe to, and they lose their entire Lemmy identity.

My colleagues are mostly from Eastern Europe.

Classifying democracies as dictatorships is histrionic in the extreme, and specious at best. It doesn’t even make sense. The concepts are antithetical.

It turns out it’s every time as we’re seeing with late-stage capitalism.

I’m sorry I don’t understand what you’re arguing. Are you claiming that all Western nations are authoritarian? I emphatically disagree.

There are definitely people advocating for actual communism. Social programs in a democracy are worlds away from communism. We have universal healthcare in Europe without communism.

How many times has capitalism become dictatorships or fascists?

A handful of times. Most capitalist nations are not authoritarian. Purely by the numbers, it has a much better track record. Of course, “it’s not real capitalism/communism” always derails this discussion.

I think you outline why communism inevitably fails. Marx advocated for violent revolution to overthrow the “bourgeois” democracy. The moment democracy is gone, the strong take and retain power. This is why, no matter the system, democracy must be the bottom line. It ensures that power is distributed. It’s not perfect, but it’s much better than the alternatives.

If communism becomes authoritarian every time it is attempted, I don’t see the practical distinction.

If communism devolves into authoritarianism every time it is attempted, I don’t see the practical distinction.

deleted by creator

I’ve never met anyone who hates communism more than the colleagues of mine who grew up under communism. Their neighbours disappeared for saying the wrong things. They were hungry and cold as children every day. Sometimes they didn’t have any shoes. They weren’t allowed to leave their country for holidays. They couldn’t afford it, even if they were allowed. They couldn’t study what they wanted. Their entire educational system was political propaganda. Freedom of religion didn’t exist.

It always amazes me how the most vocal proponents of communism come from the most sheltered, most privileged people alive who would retch from learning about the atrocities committed in the name of communism. If they only spent a few minutes on Google.

I sympathise and relate. Perhaps our school systems need to teach kids these values. It may be too late by the time they hit school. I also wonder if it would be permitted in our highly polarised political climates.

As someone from a similar background as you, I think this matters, but it’s not nearly as important as you believe. All it takes is a few days in the office to understand 80% of the required cultural norms. Most of them are plainly explained in the onboarding documentation.

The cultural delta between an international migrant and a local is FAR larger than between any classes. I know this from experience as I have lived in six countries now. In the case of these European countries, which are still relatively culturally homogenous, these cultural differences matter even less.

They study this, and certain behaviour (which can be taught) is important for career success. The good news is that these behaviours and values can and do transcend class and culture.

Altogether, results suggest that goal-directed performance is fundamental to [conscientiousness] and that motivational engagement, behavioral restraint, and environmental predictability influence its optimal occupational expression.

I think the differences we see in this research is related to structural economic and social policies. The Danish job market is excellent, for example, with lots of opportunities for people of all abilities, and high wages. They have a very strong economy. When coupled with free education for everyone, it means anyone in the bottom 10% can achieve median income quickly. Usually within one generation.

I’m sure they really believe their opinions but I don’t subscribe to the conspiracy theory that cycling is a panacea of awesome and everyone who opposes it is an oil shill. There are many real obstacles. Proponents often argue, “well just restructure society!”, as though that’s achievable or even desirable to many citizens.

That said, there are many ways to improve eco-friendly transport in cities. It just requires convincing locals that it’s better than driving. Selling this vision has been a catastrophic failure for activists. They need to stop arguing for a nebulous benefit which might benefit some future generation. They need to argue for why cycling is better today. If they can confidently prove it’s better, voters will support these measures.

After a lot of research I’ve come to the conclusion the only viable solution is bike lanes with a curb separating them and roads. As a mode of transport, bikes are as different from cars as they are from pedestrians. All three need their own lanes. Bikes make city traversal much more viable without a car.

Of course there are some caveats here. Not every city is well planned for cycling. Cities in the Netherlands have much higher density than places like Austin. If it takes 10km to get from your home to the grocery store, bicycle lanes are just less useful. Geography also matters. Holland is flat as a pancake. Many other places are not, and like it or not, hills suck for cycling unless you have an e-bike. Most people do not. Finally, weather matters. People in cold climates can dress warmer. People in hot climates cannot dress any cooler than shorts and t-shirt. If the temperature is hot for much of the year, or months at a time, people cannot rely on it for their commutes or errands. This makes cycling unviable for some hot cities.

Car free zones are great, but only when the public transport infrastructure can support it. If most people who come to the city live far away because of low density, public transport becomes very expensive to implement and maintain. People don’t want to jack up their taxes 10-20% to pay for that. Longer term planning should permit and encourage higher density, but there is a cultural component here. Some people really like having a house with a backyard. Apartments don’t offer this.

The other reply is correct regarding the macro effects of the practise. The more immediate issue is that it allows shareholders to avoid paying dividend taxes. So they can effectively defer paying taxes until they realise any capital gains. This is a huge benefit, as the present value of money is worth much more than the future value of money. However there is an even larger benefit in the U.S. Dependents can inherit stocks at the current price and avoid paying any capital gains tax. This is called the “stepped-up basis.” It’s an insane tax loophole. Together stock buy-backs and the stepped-up basis allow the ultra wealthy to pay little to no tax, ever. They take out perpetual loans to pay for living expenses, guaranteed against their holdings.

I agree. I could live with it if it were merely a way to defer taxes, but the U.S. has something called the stepped-up basis. This allows people to inherit stocks without paying tax on the capital gains. The wealthy can live their whole lives without paying any tax. Both stock buy-backs and the stepped-up basis severely undermine the stock market and tax system.

I don’t use Spotify, but no one forces artists to list their music on Spotify. They can choose list on any platform they like. FYI Spotify does in fact pay artists. Just less than Bandcamp. Streaming is why I don’t pirate anymore. If I had to go back to paying $30 for an album I’d be a pirate again. So artists can take some of my money, or none of it.