I agree, workers should get an equal say. I think a company’s finances should be more open by that same token so workers have more perspective on come money is coming in and how it’s being split. Maybe it’s something that will have to change a state at a time, but I’m optimistic that it could be implemented.

(Lol I think it’s a clever rhyme as well.)

I mean that pretty much is what happened in the US at least. The corporate tax rate was substantially higher and so individual take rate on the richest Americans post-WW2 and pre-Regan. Public works were well funded and having a government job meant you had a stable and well paying salary. Private business owners pushed congress to ease up on the tax rate ‘to spur private business growth and create jobs’, especially since original justification of funding the war effort disappeared.

While private business did grow more from the eased up taxes, what happened more was that the owners of these companies started raking in more and more in net profits. Suddenly the pay differential between the workers and the factory owners started to balloon to a much greater level.

By the time Regan came in, this process then started to snowball even more to what we see today since Regan cut corporate tax rate even more than Republicans did previously post-WW2.

To think, we could have had well funded public programs for decades. Standard jobs could have been paying a living wage still, like it was expected for them to do back then.

Tbh, I think you need protections that are hard to remove by greedy individuals and politicians. If regulations required a 2/3 majority of the votes in both chambers to lower that could prevent a lot of shenanigans. I don’t think everything necessarily should have that high of a barrier, but regulations and protections are usually prime targets for those seeking to make a quick buck.

I personally think workers could have proportional share of ownership in a company. At least then they directly benefit when the company benefits, much like the owners currently do. Maybe something like the 30% ownership by the CEO, 50% ownership by the employees, and 20% ownership split between the local community/county/state/federal government. If the public has partial ownership their needs become more of the forefront, and it can help bring resources back into the local communities. If not public ownership, then steeper corporate tax rates of larger corporations, potentially even having corporate tax brackets like exist for private citizens.

It shouldn’t be legal for the interest of shareholders to outweigh the interest of stakeholders. Companies need to be beholden to stakeholders only; while shareholders are a part of the stakeholders in a company, their interests should be equal to each of the other stakeholders.

I agree, stocks don’t need to be short term investments that people can day trade to game.

Also, the millionaires and billionaires that own stock should be forced to sell their shares instead of being allowed to use their stock as collateral. These people can evade paying taxes on their money for their whole lives while still gaining the effects of actually using that money since the stock doesn’t need to be sold to be useable.

I feel this image is more “how it starts and how it becomes, when left unregulated”. Many people that brought products to the market did so with good intentions and sought to be competitive. When companies start getting bigger and are then allowed to buy up their direct competitors, that is when the model falls apart. As the focus shifts from what’s best for the customer into what will help the company maintain its spot on top. In many cases by making it near impossible for newer companies to enter the market. From raising the legal barriers of entry in their industry to dropping the products prices to unprofitable levels until any new competition can’t afford to stay open to compete. Monopolies should be broken up.

Modified and regulated capitalism is the only ethical capitalism imo. By that I mean there needs to be room for fair competition and there needs be something like a Universal Basic Income in place. As capitalism itself doesn’t help people get their basic needs met. People need to be able to afford things within the system to keep it going. Small businesses would benefit a lot from their customers and employees both benefiting from a basic income, as customers would have money disposable income and employees would not have to rely so much on their employers pay to meet their basic needs.

It’s helping! I’m not someone that really does art so it’s been fun making silly stuff for myself. It’s nice change of pace getting to approach it without any expectations.

BlueSky’s block/mute lists are some the best new tools we have against bots and misinformation. Lemmy could implement those same tools if it becomes an issue. Currently, Lemmy uses the risk of defederation to hold server admins accountable for cracking down on bots and bad actors.

The music mixing capabilities are very solid if you’re looking to use your new laptop as a creative outlet. The default software is solid for journaling and writing as well. You can set up shortcuts to run some custom automations as well. Hope this helps!

2025 feels like the year of Linux to me; I’m glad to see more Linux and SteamOS support.

They can’t have it both ways imo. If they’re reaping the benefits of it, then they should acknowledge it’s good and should be in place. That’s blatantly not the case though.

I personally would prefer if we continue to support these people since plenty of the people living in those states are not voting against their own self-interest. Imo, caring people living in the deep red or deep blue states should move to more purple districts in purple states to help move the country as a whole to be more caring politically.

I think blue states should also move to implement more safety nets on their own instead of waiting for a blue supermajority federally. If people see how their state and local government can work for them, they’d be more likely to want those policies in their own states. States by that same token should be willing to go into debt to fund long running infrastructure and policies that will be value adds to the state and residents living there.

I don’t know if it’s winning force so much as it’s being spread by bots and bad actors, although the result is more or less the same. Flooding the zone with their rhetoric makes it look like it’s well supported, which in turns convinces some people that it might not be nonsense.

Of course! Most companies deserve to ghosted imo. It should not take weeks for them to assess if a candidate could be a good fit, and they should be prepared to discuss your starting salary then and there.

Many companies will not pay you what you’re worth initially and still won’t after you negotiate for more, as they don’t really fully commit themselves to a candidate until they’ve proved themselves a little over the first 90 days. If you’re blowing their expectations out of the water, you can usually negotiate for more after the 90 day starting period.

Really, anything other than FPTP is fine. RCV only has the same outcome as FPTP, where the least liked candidate can win, in ~10% of outcomes which is fairly uncommon. Really we should be okay with promoting most of the alternatives since they can be modified down the line as well. I personally promote Ranked Robin, STAR, and Score more but RCV is always worth supporting if it’s on your local ballot vs FPTP. Most people are more familiar and accepting of RCV if they have heard of some of these alternatives.

If we keep growing interest locally, people will become more familiar with the alternatives. The more cities and counties that use alternative voting systems, the easier it gets to pass these alternative systems statewide.

While many state lawmakers are determined to push back against alternative voting systems, there is always the possibility of flipping the rules back down the line, especially if more states in general flip blue, progressive, or independent.

I believe there are downsides only if you are drinking too much caffeine or if it is in conflict with one of your medications or existing health conditions, afaik.

Healthline weighs the pros and very few cons of caffeine.

Do you drink any coffees or teas? I don’t really touch caffeinated sodas these days, but I believe coffee and tea with caffeine are great since the caffeine is a stimulant which can help with focusing. The most important thing is consuming caffeine in moderation and at the right time, I believe. Drinking coffee only really helps in the first hour or so of waking up for instance or before a twenty minute nap.

I feel that Healthline does a pretty decent job of weighing the pros and cons.

I believe the job market dictates some of it. It depends a lot on your company’s structure here in the USA for if this is the standard or not as well. Plus different states have more protections for hired on workers which could further complicate how picky organizations get.

If it’s a mid to large size employer this becomes more common practice to do multiple interviews, I believe.

There could be time conflicts for organizing an interview, such as the need to hire someone during a busy season vs slow season, or when different key decision makers are out on PTO. The company could also be having a difficult time making a final choice between two or more candidates so they are trying to find anything to help weed some of them out. I think that last one is pretty pathetic though since it is wasting everyone’s time if can’t make that determination from the initial interview.

From my experience it’s usually because management doesn’t want to meet the applicants until person A, B, and C have all individually thought the candidate is worth the upper management team’s time.

Corporations don’t care unless they are regulated to care, but it’s also mixed with some corporations getting lots of flakes for the interviews. A hour wasted of upper management time spent studying up on someone that doesn’t show up for the interview could be a few hundred or a thousand dollars down the drain in “missed productivity”. Still, if they cared about the candidates they would do a team interview, and bring the executive team in right after if they thought the candidate was solid.

“That was the turning point. Since that day, I’ve lived a lie. The lie of living. My name too was a lie. My personal history, a lie. Nothing but lies. I was sick to death of a world that couldn’t be changed. But even in my lies, I refused to give up in despair. But now this incredible power… it’s mine… Well, then…”

How is it redundant?

Great, the government is committed to funding the bill, then they should increase taxes to fund the bill.

We should only be incurring debt in specific situations where there is a long run value add. I’m not saying we should be cutting spending at all, but we should be funding our spending by increasing taxes on corporations.

I don’t see the issue with having a separate vote in these situations which should be uncommon, where you are not able to fund the spending because it’s for one of the specific costs that add values to our society.

I agree that private sector budgeting doesn’t operate in the same way as public budgeting, but at a certain point in future it will start chipping at the value of the dollar if our nation is not able to pay off its interest on the debt. My point is that we should be taxing corporations more to fund the spending.

Edit: I don’t see what’s controversial about this take, what’s wrong with just funding the bill?

I would say it would only be irrational in the long run if we are not making a plan to increase taxes to go along with the increased costs, at least for costs which don’t have a value add later down the line. If X amount is what it will cost to pay everything then we should increase taxes on corporations to be able to collect at minimum X amount, if not more.