Very difficult to run these days. Since 2018, federal courts have ground away many of the legal routes needed to run a successful class action suit against a national or multinational corporation.
Regardless of whether or not one personally enjoys the work one is doing, if one really is contributing to society, one should get fairly compensated for it.
Additional requirements not common in the private sector, such as rigorous drug testing, ethics codes, requirements on gift reporting, increased surveillance, etc., should come with additional benefits to compensate. Instead, government workers submit to these requirements and a substantial pay cut.
That's mostly because conservatives 1) desire tax cuts at any cost and 2) want to demolish the entire administrative state. The stability and consistency that comes with a well-funded civil servant class are an obstruction to their stated goals.
I vouched your comment, because I think you're precisely making the relevant point in the first two paragraphs.
However, I think you're wrong, at least in part, in your third paragraph. I mean, I think the word "mostly" is wrong in that paragraph. Politicians from all political factions are (quite reasonably) under pressure to lower the cost of doing the work of government, and (quite reasonably) to raise the integrity of the process. Combined with some of the dysfunction inherent in agent-principal problems, I think that's more than enough to cause the problem you're talking about. I experience this firsthand in a jurisdiction that has much less of the "demolish the entire administrative state" that afflicts the American right wing (which I'm guessing is your point of reference).
Mind you, I am not claiming that the problem is not badly worsened by American right-wing politics. I wouldn't know. I'm just claiming that the problem is semi-intrinsic to the situation, and I strongly doubt that it's "mostly" caused by those particular political issues.
You mean like settling trades every 0.25 seconds or something like that? Wouldn't there be a queue of trades piling up every 0.25 seconds, incentivizing maximum speed anyway?
Usually the proposal is to randomize the processing of the queue. So, as long as your trades get in during the window, there's no advantage to getting in any earlier. In theory the window is so small as to not have any impact on liquidity but wide enough to basically shut down all HFT.
How would that work? Would you randomly select a single order posted, go by market participant (like randomly select some entities that posted a trade in this window), and would you allow prices to move during this window?
In practice, almost no author gets to choose how the fruits of their labor are distributed. Their rights are gobbled up immediately by one of the big publishers, who then dispose of their captive intellectual property as they see fit.
To the publisher, if copyright was to terminate upon death, would the publisher then pay less for the works from a 70 year old author compared to a 30 year old? Or one that is fighting cancer or one that has sky diving as a hobby?
Is the value of the work of the author to be measured against their remaining lifetime?
In most cases this isn't accurate. The author (or, more commonly, their agent) submits the book to several publishers, who either accept or reject or refer for edits. Unless you're in the top percentile of published authors, there's very little room for negotiation. It's pretty rare for an author to have more than one "accept" on a work simultaneously, many publishers frown on multiple submission precisely because it can lead to a bidding war.
The author always chooses the publisher. They might not have many (or even multiple) options, but there is no coercion and the author can choose to keep looking for a different publisher, to go with a lower-tier publisher, to publish themselves, to publish via vanity press, or not to publish at all.
I'm afraid you're the one that's confused. Profit is defined economically as revenue minus expenses, and so the grandfather post's first sentence is correct.
What grandfather is suggesting is something like an ESOP, co-op, or etc. There are a long history of these kinds of organizations, and they thrive in free-market economies--unfortunately, nobody really lives in one of those anymore.
It is telling that you say public employee unions "extract value" by demanding the pensions/job protections that should by rights belong to everyone (and often did, in the past). Conversely, private corporations "extract value" from the labor marker by struggling to provide any job security, any retirement, or even anything resembling a living wage.
Just which sector is failing to be profitable, here?
You're welcome to start an employee owned co-op and build homes or whatever. It's completely legal and no one will stop you. There's nothing in our economic system that prevents them from working, but in practice they usually fail due to poor internal decision making. So I don't understand what you're complaining about or what point you're trying to make.
They do actually have relationships with these institutions, and are in some cases likely stuck between friendly relations with their funding source xor showing solidarity with their readers, authors, and editors. https://placesjournal.org/academic-partners/
I get that you'd rather never hear about the war again--probably doesn't affect you materially, after all--but this isn't an "awkward injection of political opinions into [an] unrelated space." They're embedded in it. The extra effort of closing a dialog box doesn't seem like too much of a cost for you to bear in exchange for reading their article.
I disagree that they’re embedded in the Israel-Gaza conflict, or that their funding from university partners is at risk by staying silent on that issue, since it is totally unrelated to what they’re writing about - architecture. To me what this looks like, is extremist authors/editors deciding to use their position to inject their personal political views here. Not everything needs to be politicized, and work isn’t the place for personal politics. I get this has been normalized in recent years with many institutions being politicized, but it needs to stop.
> The extra effort of closing a dialog box doesn't seem like too much of a cost for you to bear in exchange for reading their article.
It’s not about the cost of closing the dialog box, but the indication of poor quality and poor staff that this type of mentality indicates. It undermines the credibility of their work on topics like architecture, when they see fit to bring personal politics into this unrelated topic.
I’m confused why you’re claiming this is a personal politics issue. The journal is funded by these institutions where the protests are happening, and presumably this means the faculty and academics funding them are also the ones being arrested and whatnot. There’s nothing personal about making a statement saying you support the people who fund you.
Yes I would, but I’ve not seen that anywhere. This type of forced introduction of political views into non political spaces seems to only come from one side of the political spectrum.
