cheesecracker

Addendum: link for the population numbers of Blacks in the USA. Between 2010 and 2018 the percentage of the population that is Black has risen (as in most other years since early last century). No sign of ongoing genocide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_d...

I don't even want to work, but unfortunately food and shelter cost money.

It's all a trade-off. Don't be a founder, but then you have to put up with crazy company politics, feeling of meaninglessness, having a boss, and so on.

Personally I don't think anybody is entitled to a job, though. Hence my "I don't even want to work" statement. People have to do something to survive, that is just reality.

I think they removed that before going on their woke crusade, because they figured it is actually too vague. Different people consider different things evil.

But for individuals, I think it is still an OK choice to make to not work for companies they personally consider evil.

I know it's tired to invoke the nazis, but think about this: would you work for a company that would offer your dream job, in your dream area of work, with a dream salary, and so on? The only catch would be that you would have to say "hail Hitler" whenever you met one of your coworkers.

It's a small thing. Just two words.

The problem is, they mark you as bowing to nazi ideology.

In the same sense, even seemingly little "wokeness demands" actually are the demand to bow before woke ideology. It's simply unbearable to many people, just as (hopefully) having to say "Hail Hitler" would be unbearable to you.

But not "woke" activists, presumably.

Maybe your son would like a job board for jobs from woke companies instead.

I don't want to work in a job were activists can cancel me any time because I am a white heterosexual male.

For example since they fired James Damore, I would never consider a job with Google.

I don't like the activists, but I would tolerate them, if it weren't there nature to meddle and try to make other people bow to their will.

That's not implied by the existence of a special interest job board.

Many companies engage in woke politics and activism. How would you go about filtering them out on all the other job boards?

Why on earth should it not be OK for black people to use the service? And what is so "white" about it? Because black people are supposed to be activists and believe in identity politics? I follow plenty of black people on Twitter who don't belong to that crowd.

Have you ever wondered if is ok black people to use Hacker News? After all, it was created by white people? (I don't even know the skin color of the creators of "Unwoke.hr" - why do you assume they have to be white?).

Ironic, as that is exactly what the unwoke people think about the woke people. They see it as an ideology that you have to "take the knee" to, a ka "follow orders", to be accepted into the community.

People simply prefer to work for companies that are not evil. That's not "doing nothing", that's voting with their feet.

Same here, I just don't trust them enough to build on their API anymore.

Maybe some people (how many?) fail because of anxiety, but on the other hand, anybody who doesn't fail certainly has proven some minimal coding skills?

I usually took it as a positive if companies did some basic coding skill test, showing they at least cared that people can code.

Also, the people who fail because of anxiety, how will they fare in the normal job situation when they are supposed to discuss stuff on the whiteboard with colleagues?

Maybe the results could be taken as "give people who fail the coding interview another chance", but I wouldn't take it as "don't do coding interviews".

I procrastinated switching to CSS sprites until HTTP/2 came around and made it superfluous, so I don't agree.

Just because somebody is rich, doesn't imply there are many resources. It's just a debt owed by society, which can also go bankrupt. Jeff Bezos earning another Billion does not imply more houses have been created or more plants have been reared and so on. It just means people bought stuff from him, in return for a promise to pay them back in the future (money is a promise of future goods). If Bezos decided today to buy loads of grain with his Billions, to feed the poor somehwere, that grain would be missing somewhere else.

The talk about "businesses that society should consider viable" is nonsense, as the example of the pensioner wanting someone to clean their apartment shows. What should they do if society doesn't consider them "viable", commit suicide?

If society doesn't deem some business "viable", they can simply refuse to work for that business.

If you want to create jobs "collectively", sorry to say, you are in full blown socialist territory, and you will fail, for the same reasons that socialism always fail (because planning economies can't assign resources efficiently enough).

You can use the internet for two more years to learn, THEN go into the wilderness. I would even allow you to take some tools from industrialization, maybe a knife made from steel and proper clothing and a tent. Fair?

As for suitable areas, there are still undiscovered tribes living in the Amazonas. I think you may still be able to find some places where you can live your dream.

Very few people can afford to pay other people a living wage. What's your point?

You only exhibit the socialist magic thinking again As if there are infinite resources, and the only problem is to redistribute them. That's not how the real work works. If you want to eat, somebody (possibly you) has to hunt or farm, gather resources, and so on. It's not a given that any number of people can simply earn a "living wage" or even have a job. Somebody has to create such jobs, that are productive enough to feed somebody.

Instead of complain about stinginess of businesses, prove your theories by creating jobs that pay better.

i say that "living wage" nonsense is hate speech. You are not just saying "oh those businesses can't afford to pay a living wage", you are saying they are greedy and make people poor and so on.

And the full-time job is not a valid argument. So if some company were to split their jobs into part time jobs, it would make it OK for you? I rather doubt that.

And why would you say that is the case? Bad personal finance skills (high mortgage, student debt...)?

How many people even try to negotiate their work hours? I'd believe you if you claimed less than 10% even think about it, the others just accept their lot as the norm.

We won't die because of that - pollution has gone down anyway, whether climate change will really become catastrophic has yet to be seen.

But even if you believe it will - what's the point to anything? In the end everybody dies, no matter what you do.

They can afford to take a long holiday at the very least. Compared to other workers, certainly. Or maybe they prefer to live in expensive housing instead of paying for spare time. Why shouldn't it be their choice?

As for factory workers, are you sure the issue is factories not paying enough? Or what exactly is going on in the US economy? What is so expensive? Why is there so much competition for jobs?

"In Demand" as in "can't find as many people as you want to fill the jobs". Unskilled work usually doesn't fall in that category.

It's a completely backwards way of thinking. A "business" or "entity" can afford to pay x for service y. If x is too low for you, don't take the job. That's it.

It's pure fantasy to assume every employer could pay a living wage. For example, take house cleaning. What if some pensioner can spare 30$/week to have their house cleaned. How are they supposed to pay a living wage? If somebody steps forward and says OK, I'll clean the house for 30$, fine. If not, tough luck. But to demand the pensioner should pay a living wage (like what, 2000$ or more to have their house cleaned), or call them evil for not paying enough, is backwards and absurd.

Thanks for the info. Article doesn't mention the reasoning behind Ford's move, though.

I still think the whole demand is completely backwards.

Article also mentions the info workers who work 12 hours and more - well they do it because they make good money that way. They'll retire by 40 and have the last laugh.

Thanks for the information.

Nevertheless the claim that only Unions can reduce work hours is simply false. People can negotiate their contracts. Many people work less than 40 hour work weeks.

Nevertheless, you are still free to do it. Maybe join the Amish, for starters (although afaik they don't shun all technology).

In any case, you can get together with a group of friends and live the way you imagine. There are enough people who dream of that kind of lifestyle, that you should be able to find a group that is large enough.

Which jobs would that be, can you give some examples?

Complete bullshit. Do a job that is actually in demand, then nobody can force you to work more than you want.

And the 8 hour work day was supposedly introduced by Ford, not by Unions.

Number of poor people has gone down thanks to industrialization - even while at the same time total population numbers have exploded.

https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=508

how can anybody believe such bullshit?

Put your money where your mouth is: you can still live without industrialization. Find some wood, build your hut, and go for it.

Come back in five years and tell us how much you hate industrialization. If you haven't "efficiently died", that is.