So "it's better for everybody" because only you and fellow travellers understand math and the scientific "evidence". I have more faith in the wisdom of common people and businesspeople than you do in technocracy.
"It works if we insist [by government force] everyone play by the same rules.... I can't figure out why so many people in the US think that is somehow a bad thing."
It's because it's never that simple. First of all, a government mandate that it refuses to pay for is an act of political cowardice.
Other than that, if the government mandates employers pay for such long leaves, it will hugely penalize small companies, and prospective employment of women.
The GP said that raising the thermostat settings was done as a part of energy efficiency. Raising the setting means getting a worse outcome, and thus represents only savings, not efficiency.
Those are certainly interesting historical anecdotes. But the original poster made claims about business executives, none of whose scale/type existed back in the days of Seppoku etc. Even if timely, they describe only the orchard, and neither the apple nor the orange.
"children in the US under a certain age have a right to education, and it's certainly actionable in the sense that they can sue the government to provide it if necessary"
That's not a right. That is a government benefit program provided, quality-controlled (?), or even discontinued at its pleasure.
Was there a survey or mind-scan of some sort, based on which you feel entitled to state the inner feelings of Japanese vs. Western executives? Or have you spoken to some?
"government is obligated to pay for a lawyer for you if you cannot afford one"
That is an interesting edge case, in that it represents a defence against the state already attacking the individual. Lest you find the TV scenes too compelling, almost certainly this government-provided-lawyer is available to only some people, and only for some cases. So no... I'd call it more of a procedural benefit than a "right".
Can you imagine normal civil rights working that way? "Sir, sorry, you're too wealthy to exercise free speech right here.".
This sort of thing is a natural progression of labeling every little benefit or service or obligation or arrangement a "right". No.
A "right" is something that others' actions may not infringe - something that if they do, you can defend yourself and/or the state will defend you from. It is actionable.
Contrasted to that, a "right to water" or "right to health" or "right to happiness" or "right to have data edited/erased" is a putative obligation upon others to do something for you. That's not a "right".
"Job seekers with black sounding names get interviewed less."
If a hiring company makes decisions based on unsound heuristics, others that do not make that mistake will outcompete them. The problem is self-correcting in the long run, if it's allowed to be.
Slashdot Mirror
"fundamental change that our democracy desperately needs"
Hold onto your wallets and run for the hills.
An idea that relies on unrealistically competent (or benevolent) implementers is itself unrealistic.
Bravo on your stoicism!
"they have the ability to do updates over-the-air"
That facility better be rock-solid, lest it be another way in. (I doubt it's an open & audited protocol.)
So "it's better for everybody" because only you and fellow travellers understand math and the scientific "evidence". I have more faith in the wisdom of common people and businesspeople than you do in technocracy.
If it were such a win-win-win, it would not have to be mandatory.
"MANDATES time off before and after childbirth"
Apparently it's 0 weeks before and 8 weeks after. That time is so short that few would want to return to work then, "MANDATE" or not.
52 weeks at full pay is a whole different dynamic.
"... and making sure they take it"
Are you sure you want to go down that road?
"It works if we insist [by government force] everyone play by the same rules. ... I can't figure out why so many people in the US think that is somehow a bad thing."
It's because it's never that simple. First of all, a government mandate that it refuses to pay for is an act of political cowardice.
Other than that, if the government mandates employers pay for such long leaves, it will hugely penalize small companies, and prospective employment of women.
... but the people on leave in Canada earn little compared to their normal salaries.
The analogy would be consent of the property owner.
So should we expect & applaud a constitutional challenge to the "two-party consent" laws on the apprx.-same basis as done for the Idaho videos?
... because they're being held down by THE MAN.
Yes, "he didn't build that".
The GP said that raising the thermostat settings was done as a part of energy efficiency. Raising the setting means getting a worse outcome, and thus represents only savings, not efficiency.
"The push is toward energy-efficient buildings which require less active heating/cooling altogether."
Efficiency does not mean simply doing less effort. It means doing less effort for the same outcome.
Those are certainly interesting historical anecdotes. But the original poster made claims about business executives, none of whose scale/type existed back in the days of Seppoku etc. Even if timely, they describe only the orchard, and neither the apple nor the orange.
"children in the US under a certain age have a right to education, and it's certainly actionable in the sense that they can sue the government to provide it if necessary"
That's not a right. That is a government benefit program provided, quality-controlled (?), or even discontinued at its pleasure.
Was there a survey or mind-scan of some sort, based on which you feel entitled to state the inner feelings of Japanese vs. Western executives? Or have you spoken to some?
"government is obligated to pay for a lawyer for you if you cannot afford one"
That is an interesting edge case, in that it represents a defence against the state already attacking the individual. Lest you find the TV scenes too compelling, almost certainly this government-provided-lawyer is available to only some people, and only for some cases. So no ... I'd call it more of a procedural benefit than a "right".
Can you imagine normal civil rights working that way? "Sir, sorry, you're too wealthy to exercise free speech right here.".
The so-called "positive" ones are feel-good fiction. They are not actionable.
This sort of thing is a natural progression of labeling every little benefit or service or obligation or arrangement a "right". No.
A "right" is something that others' actions may not infringe - something that if they do, you can defend yourself and/or the state will defend you from. It is actionable.
Contrasted to that, a "right to water" or "right to health" or "right to happiness" or "right to have data edited/erased" is a putative obligation upon others to do something for you. That's not a "right".
The moral high ground is a killzone, should hostilities break out.
(What does your first sentence have to do with the second?)
"Job seekers with black sounding names get interviewed less."
If a hiring company makes decisions based on unsound heuristics, others that do not make that mistake will outcompete them. The problem is self-correcting in the long run, if it's allowed to be.