Brussels doesn't seem to be getting the message. We are all sick and tired of their politics. After Brexit, one might have hoped they would back off... but bureaucrats are not generally known for reducing their interference in other people's business.
I couldn't agree more. Having witnessed corporate IT outsourcing first hand, and being one of its "victims", I can tell you that the cost savings are generally superficial, as the project will end up costing more in the long term. Nonetheless, this remains a decision to be taken by management, who would normally be made to bear the consequences of their bad decisions. Unlike others, I'm not so much interested in protecting my employment from competition, but rather in being useful.
I'm sure you realize how much you sound like a whiney special interest. Meanwhile, the rest if us are happy to have cheap(er) labor available to control the costs of living.
"That's a $93bn expenditure. Just capital gains."
Sorry, a bit off topic here, but how is not taxing people an "expenditure"? By the same logic, one could claim that because the tax rate on anything is X rather than something bigger than X, the difference is an "expenditure" that is costing the government money. I think perhaps Ms. Moore might be in need of an accounting class... or maybe just a dictionary.
This machine is as responsible for its actions as a poorly trained dog who bites random strangers. Normally, we would hold the dog's owner responsible for this behavior, and one might say that the same should be true of this machine.
I don't know much about it, not being a landlord in the UK (or anywhere else, for that matter), but I'm guessing that, since at least some landlords seem to be interested in this service, this insurance, even if it does exist, doesn't cover 100% of lost rent. Besides, buying such an insurance policy is just a way of managing the risk. The risk of non-payment still exists, and must be assumed by somebody. All you've done here is to pass the responsibility to the insurance company, who would presumably also require use of this evil service.
As for "not being in that business"... yes. And the more "protected" renters are from their own insolvency, the fewer landlords there will be, and the higher the rents will be in accordance with the natural law of supply and demand. Problem solved? Not so much...
As evil as this idea seems, one must temper the outrage with an understanding of landlords' motivation to do such a thing. The reason is clear: tenants can be very difficult to evict in case of non-payment. This sort of thing is just the natural consequence of laws that over-protect tenants, leading landlords to seek their own means of protecting their interests. Idem for employers.
Slashdot Mirror
Brussels doesn't seem to be getting the message. We are all sick and tired of their politics. After Brexit, one might have hoped they would back off... but bureaucrats are not generally known for reducing their interference in other people's business.
I assume you're being facetious.
I couldn't agree more. Having witnessed corporate IT outsourcing first hand, and being one of its "victims", I can tell you that the cost savings are generally superficial, as the project will end up costing more in the long term. Nonetheless, this remains a decision to be taken by management, who would normally be made to bear the consequences of their bad decisions. Unlike others, I'm not so much interested in protecting my employment from competition, but rather in being useful.
I'm sure you realize how much you sound like a whiney special interest. Meanwhile, the rest if us are happy to have cheap(er) labor available to control the costs of living.
no so much, actually. was that intended as sarcasm?
"That's a $93bn expenditure. Just capital gains." Sorry, a bit off topic here, but how is not taxing people an "expenditure"? By the same logic, one could claim that because the tax rate on anything is X rather than something bigger than X, the difference is an "expenditure" that is costing the government money. I think perhaps Ms. Moore might be in need of an accounting class... or maybe just a dictionary.
This machine is as responsible for its actions as a poorly trained dog who bites random strangers. Normally, we would hold the dog's owner responsible for this behavior, and one might say that the same should be true of this machine.
I don't know much about it, not being a landlord in the UK (or anywhere else, for that matter), but I'm guessing that, since at least some landlords seem to be interested in this service, this insurance, even if it does exist, doesn't cover 100% of lost rent. Besides, buying such an insurance policy is just a way of managing the risk. The risk of non-payment still exists, and must be assumed by somebody. All you've done here is to pass the responsibility to the insurance company, who would presumably also require use of this evil service. As for "not being in that business"... yes. And the more "protected" renters are from their own insolvency, the fewer landlords there will be, and the higher the rents will be in accordance with the natural law of supply and demand. Problem solved? Not so much...
Good thing they don't scan Slashdot posts... yet.
As evil as this idea seems, one must temper the outrage with an understanding of landlords' motivation to do such a thing. The reason is clear: tenants can be very difficult to evict in case of non-payment. This sort of thing is just the natural consequence of laws that over-protect tenants, leading landlords to seek their own means of protecting their interests. Idem for employers.