jvmfjvfjvf

You're talking about a different app not Uber, which doesn't penalize per acceptance rates. Besides, I don't think you understand how these gig apps work. You can only accept or reject if you're clocked into a shift. His dad can clock in at anytime but he won't be penalized on Skip if he's not clocked in.

Absolutely wrong. There are no penalties for not working. I've done that myself. Further to equate a "boss" to an app is quite a leap.

"Your dad is forced to be an indentured servant for these companies"

His dad can work at anytime, anywhere and doesn't have a boss to mandate when he clocks in. How is that being an indentured servant?

This is not correct. The costs of employing drivers would increase. The driver supply would go down and the price of an Uber ride would therefore increase. This is basic econ.

That isn't how labor law works. Employees in his state are most likely at-will and can be fired without notice.

Amazon drivers unionizing would cause Amazon to hire FedEx or DHL. Unions don't have a monopoly on drivers.

FedEx delivery drivers aren't unionized.

What strength do they have? Unions routinely cause jobs to be eliminated and offshored.

A tank is 1 mpg. I am guessing they are not driving more than 1 or 2 miles on an excursion. This is hardly harmful to the environment compared to other entertainment options.

There are many players who don't live up to their $100MM+ contracts. I fail to understand why physicality should be relevant to high compensation.

Why is that trash? I would love to drive and shoot a real tank as a civilian.

The stock would be worth less than his options price. Why would he still get $175M?

He did not get a golden parachute. He was compensated that amount over time. He grew a company from $400MM in revenues to $70Bn and was rewarded $1.6Bn for it. I fail to see any issue with this.

Sundar Pichai managed many successful Google products before he became CEO.

What are your thoughts on NFL player Josh Allen having a $250MM contract? I fail to understand why there is more controversy over CEO pay than athletes.

There is a huge difference, If Google stock underperforms, he is not getting that compensation unlike salaried folks.

Why is it ridiculous when NFL and NBA players have $500MM contracts? Why shouldn't Google be allowed to pay these large contracts too?

225MM is not salary. It is stock compensation based on performance.

So he got smarter on economics as he aged like most people? His economics advisors were at the top of their fields, including Nobel laureates. It is not highly shocking that he changed his views.

Well the wind farms are being subsidized by the federal government and they have likely entered into decades long lease agreements. Much of the land is also zoned for agricultural use. This prevents landowners from building housing on it.

Again you're not factoring in opportunity costs. If you had 100,000 homes built on Altamont instead of wind farms that would generate a lot more tax revenue (and jobs and obviously homes) than the "savings" you would get from a wind farm.

This is not quite true. The biggest American wind farm (Altamont Pass) is right next to Silicon Valley in the Bay Area. The 2-9 ones are between 20-50 miles from cities. You mention these "rural" areas as if nothing would be built there. These areas are typically developed over 10-50 years, just like the Bay Area when that wind farm was built.

Boston, NYC, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Buffalo, Anchorage, Portland, Rochester, Syracuse, Erie, etc.

Take your pick. There are a ton of American cities where solar does not work like how you imagine

No, it's not. The Altamont wind farm on hugely expensive Bay Area real estate can power under 50,000 homes. For comparison a coal or nuclear plant of 1/1000th the size can power 1 million homes. You are not factoring in opportunity costs. The price of land is real and it is not cheap.

I'm curious if you've ever been to the Bay Area and noticed the huge Altamont wind farm that could have a million homes on it.

This could make sense in Arizona not Seattle. You would have to build more solar farms in Arizona.

Wind farms are built on top of land that could be used to build more housing. There's a huge wind farm in the the Bay Area (Altamont Pass) that is used for wind farms that could have been used to build a ton of more houses.

Contrary to what you may think, wind and solar are not cheap. Land is very expensive. You would even increase housing costs due to land being used for energy instead of new home construction.

Ever noticed how former US enemies (China, Vietnam, East Germany, Czech Republic) that moved from socialism to capitalism don't have food shortages anymore?

"Price controls and the seizure of farms and factories by the government led to food shortages."

-NPR