@BouefGlaze's banner p

BouefGlaze


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 October 15 00:03:27 UTC

				

User ID: 1655

BouefGlaze


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 October 15 00:03:27 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1655

I believe you are right, and it is interesting how completely taboo it would be to suggest to a gay person, “Maybe a heterosexual relationship and a family would make you happier?”

Whereas suggesting to someone heterosexual that exploring the same sex experiences would not be out of place in a conventional agony aunt column

Others have pointed out something similar, and I'll add to the chorus: it might be the case that having lots of HR people really is business-optimal in times of plenty. When the market falls, your engineers are happy to just have a job at all and don't need much coddling. When the market is rising, and engineers have many options to jump ship, it could be in the company's genuine interests to have a huge HR pool managing their perks / expenses / work retreats / Casual Pizza Party Fridays / etc etc.

This is an interesting take, but my experience is the opposite. HR don't coddle, they suffocate. All the bullshit training, the blizzard of emails, the forms, the surveys the requirements. Giving each manager $100 per month per employee to take their team out to dinner is low overhead. Just paying people more is zero overhead. In times of plenty and times of little, I want HR to nothing more than payroll.

So your real disagreement is really with the tax rate it sounds like.

Advocate for the tax to be brought down to, say 0.0001% of the property's value and it ceases to be a problem.

We just have to fiddle with the dials a bit to solve your objection.

Fine, we set it to 0.000001%, I set the value of my table to $999999.00, pay a cent a year tax and we are back to where we are now, no change in anyone's behaviour. Except that's not what's being lined up. The whole point of this system is to change people's behaviour, no? So the tax rate will necessarily be raised to the point where the choice becomes difficult, where accepting a low offer or paying a high tax are equally painful.

This is like a pro-gun advocate saying

"So your real disagreement is really with the calibre it sounds like. Don't worry, once I have power to set gun laws I could just set a calibre limit of .01, that would barely hurt a fly! Just let me set the laws and we can sort that out!"