It's still FUD, it just means some unions are corrupt. Or maybe more whataboutism.
Imagine if we all (and not just the left) talked about companies the same way we talk about unions, using the countless examples of managerial abuse, wage theft etc. as examples. Would you say that would be reasonable?
And preemptively, this is not a "both sides" question either. Everything is grey, but there are shades of grey. And while neither unions nor companies are perfect, both are at the same time vital to how things work right now and not above criticism. They both are definitely preferable to 1820s style enterprises for example, but worse than the Culture.
Maybe 'not all unions' but several very large unions are responsible for some massive, fundamental problems we have today. E.g., cities are going bankrupt in large part tied to unions. I don't think it counts as FUD; even if 'not all unions', I think we have identified issues with the union structure that no one knows yet how to resolve, that will come back if unions come back.
It's like trying to argue 'not all cops'. Sure, but we still decided body cams were a good idea.
I believe we need to swing back towards unionizing. But I think there are real & legitimate concerns that haven't been fixed & aren't FUD.
Do we really want to talk about unions bankrupting cities without addressing the corporations? The corps who lobbied for free trade, which opened up the labor market to the world and required Americans to complete with 3rd world level wages?
Then, when Americans did not want to compete with rural Chinese farmers pay, those corporations abandoned the area? Leaving cities with huge infrastructure bills and a large population? None of these issue develop in a vacuum. They are complex.
How do you interpret cities going bankrupt due to collosal unfunded pension obligations? It takes two to tango- the city is party, but so is the union.
Thanks for this. Every time unions are mentioned people want to turn it into a black/white issue and won't allow for shades of grey.
Unions can be great for workers. They can also fuck up markets and/or workers. What's wrong with taking the good and improving the bad for unions in the 21st century?
That's literally what 99% of the start-ups in Silicon Valley are doing in various verticals.
The black/white thinking when it comes to discussion of unions always feels like people have more of an agenda to push that being interested in any meaningful discussion.
How about we change the laws so that people who support the US Government are free to pay taxes, and people who DON'T are free to renounce their citizenship but keep their residency and protections?
Instead of doing that I am just going to oppose all unions everywhere and try and prevent them from getting any power at all.
Why? Because as soon as they get a foothold, it is done. Over. Can't get rid of them. There are literally rules where they can fire you for trying to end the union.
If it weren't for attitudes like yours, I wouldn't be opposing unions. But your attitude DOES exist, so my only option is all out war.
Fortunately, the rest of my industry (tech) agrees with me and does not support unions. And fortunately, union support is going down massively all across the US.
>You are protected by law in all 50 states from being fired from your job for not joining a union. You can be only liable for no more than the requirement to pay either union dues or a reduced amount to work in an agency shop. If you refuse to join the union and refuse to pay the required dues, then you can be fired.
Because it doesn't work like that, you can't deny the benefits, the way they work (in Aus, it will be similar elsewhere) is with EBA (Enterprise Bargaining Agreements). Basically, the union will go into talks with companies, agree on conditions and then they will be spread out as an effective handshake rule across the industry. The union act as mitigators between businesses and workers, which pretty much changes the entire industry. So you can't really opt out. Unless of course you go and work for companies who don't sign the EBA's, and having worked in Construction before, the majority of these companies have malicious reasons for not signing, and you wouldn't want to work for them. I've seen a handful of people try to not pay dues, and it's pretty much always because they just don't want to pay money, whilst still pulling the benefits.
> So you can't really opt out. Unless of course you go and work for companies who don't sign the EBA
Actually there is a better way. The better way is to do everything in your power as a worker and citizen to prevent the union from being formed in the first place. Either at YOUR company, or at any others, even if you don't work there. As well as by pushing for any law that reduces the power of unions.
A union can't force you to pay dues if they are crippled country wide.
And this has been what has been happening in the US for decades, as unions are less powerful than they have ever been.
Don't like that attitude? Well then the pro-union people shouldn't have pushed to require people to pay dues.
The fundamental problem is that the more power that unions get, the more likely they are to invade whatever industry I am in and destroy. I don't ever want to risk THAT.
And what incentive do collective groups have to do that? I struggle to understand why people would act against their own self-interests to undermine their own rights and pay. Did you know that global wage growth is being outstripped by inflation?
What good does crippling unions do? You think it's useful for large portions of the community to be on stifled wages and bad working conditions?
Unions are less powerful in the US because the US has a broken system where those with money have more votes than those with less? There is a financial interest in having the
"mere peons" on less cash because it results in a better balance sheet situation for executives and share holders, resulting in better EOY dividends and better bonuses.
I support Unions because of people like you, because for some fucking unknown reason, people like you believe that some are entitled to less because they are employed in xxxx profession or don't have xxxx degree.
The fundamental problem is that unions are REQUIRED, if there was a bigger sense of social responsibilty, people would get paid decent living wages and wouldn't be worked in horrendously dangerous conditions dealing with power brokers whose only interest is their own portfolio value.
Please, get away from the trickle down economics bullshit and come back to the real world. How much evidence of corporate malfeasance do you have to see on a daily basis before realising that protecting the rights of the 99% is not only a good economic decision, but also a humane one.
> And what incentive do collective groups have to do that?
Because we do not want the union "benefits" that aren't really benefits.
We do not want another group controlling our workplace or forcing us into horrible, one size fits all, collective bargaining agreements. We want to be allowed to negotiate for ourselves.
We do not want gigantic barriers to entry, meant only to discriminate against people who couldn't afford to buy a fancy 4 year piece of paper.
We do not want discrimination against young people (ie, seniority pay requirements) forced into our contracts. We want to be judged equally on our own merits.
We do not want to be stuck in an organization that we can basically never get rid of once it is established.
I believe that I am way better off without any union forcing me to join.
And apparently a whole lot of other people ALSO agree with me.
We believe that it is very much in the self interest of workers to prevent unions from destroying our industry with overbearing rules and regulations that prevent us from doing our job.
This is not some rare, weird, opinion that I hold. This is the MAJORITY opinion. Unions are less popular than ever, because we the workers don't want them.
> Because we do not want the union "benefits" that aren't really benefits.
"The union protects and improves Members' wages and conditions. Our successful bargaining campaigns continue to deliver fair wages and better conditions like superannuation, site allowances, redundancy pay and income protection. In the year 2000 this branch of the CFMEU won the 36 hour week, giving workers 26 paid days off a year."
Also get 5% YOY pay rises, which allows wages to stay in line with inflation instead of stagnating. You're being naive with your comments IMO, ignoring the reality of the matter and trying to pitch us into a "everyone's different and should be able to negotiate" which has been shown to be damaging. How much data do you need to see about stagnating wage growth and consistently growing executive wages to see that this "we don't need unions" argument is ignorant of the truth?
> We do not want another group controlling our workplace or forcing us into horrible, one size fits all, collective bargaining agreements. We want to be allowed to negotiate for ourselves.
You can believe what you want, you do realise that most of them don't FORCE you to join, but you will likely just be treated like a leech, which is appropriate.
Please provide some data for your claims because I'm straight up gonna say you're wrong on the majority of your points.
> We believe that it is very much in the self interest of workers to prevent unions from destroying our industry with overbearing rules and regulations that prevent us from doing our job.
This one (and a few of your other comments strike a nerve) because I think that you have the entire purpose of unions confused, unions are there to provide workers, me and you, your parents, normal non-1%ers, an opportunity to get a fairer distribution of the pie, not ALL of the pie, just what is fair. If you actually provided some concrete examples of industries where you don't think the unions should be, I could have easily pulled data up on their profits, compared it to their workers wages, and it would be a lot easier to make the point that most companies can afford to pay workers better wages, which is a win-win for everyone, the idea that if I work at McDonalds, and am an enterprising individual, and ask for a pay rise vs my other workers, is laughable, why would they bother? They've crushed dissenters, and now because of the shit conditions you work in, they'll just fire you and grab someone who doesn't ask for better conditions. It's an incentive disparity, companies have no interest in paying workers more.
Here's a good one, ITT they acknowledged that they understaff consistently and expect workers to be able to work their rest days so they can keep staffing requirements low. Then naturally, it's the workers fault when they actually take their rest days.
Man, the more I read this comment, the more I think you're just trolling.
I can't possibly be trolling if I am stating the majority opinion. Most people these days do not support unions.
5% YOY raises is very low and I would hate to be stuck in that kind of collective bargaing agreement that forced me to accept it. No, I'd rather negotiate on my own and get a much better one.
And yes, unions DO force you to join, because if you don't pay their fee, and accept their bargaining agreement, then you get fired.
If they don't want to force people to join, then I guess it shouldn't be a bad idea to pass right to work laws, that make it illegal to force workers to pay the fees under threat of being fired.
If you like unions, or other people do, then that would be fine if these union people didn't make these rules that cause people to be fired, because they disagree with your opinion on unions (which is a whole lot of people!)
This is not just 1 or 2 people. This is lots and lots of people who disagree with your opinion on how great unions are. And these people should be left alone.
But because they refuse to leave them alone, then there can be no compromise.
That's the biggest problem with union people. They can't possibly understand that people could disagree with them, and don't want their "help".
You are missing the point of unions. They aren't here for software engineers making couple hundred grand a year. They are here so that we don't have people losing limbs at work because the company was too cheap to do safety properly.
You aren't interested in the service, fine. But I'm not sure why you feel like you need to cry about unions when you aren't their target group anyway?
Not if unions get a foothold in my industry, then it won't be "fine". If that happens then they will be able to implement rules and regulations that force me to join them.
And yes, there ARE movements to get the tech industry unionized (they aren't very popular, Fortunately).
No thanks. I'm a not going to let my industry be ruined like that. I'd rather stop all of that in its tracks by making unions powerless nation wide.
They can't enter my industry and force me to join if they are powerless EVERYWHERE.
Also, if it is seriously "fine" for people who don't want their "services", then how about we implement right to work laws everywhere?
Shouldn't it be "fine" for everyone to not join them if they don't want to?
Fortunately for me, though, unions are continueing to become less powerful. So fortunately, less and less of them will be able to force people to join in the future.
I find it insulting that there are groups out there that demand my aligence, and assert that they are the ones fighting for my own interest.
I can fight for my self better on my own, thank you very much. I do not want an organization, forcing me to join them and forcing me to agree with their opinions "for my own good", because I don't know any better.
I will negotiate, and fight the capitalist class, using the ways that I feel are best, and not through a coercive organization that is only looking out for themselves.
If unions were so great, then they wouldn't need to make everyone join them. They would stand on their own merits. I do not want their "benefits".
And because unions refuse to be voluntary, my only option is supporting the anti-union movements that make them powerless nationwide. They can't force me to join if they are universally powerless.
Well you, and the pro union people can fight it their way, and I'll fight it mine.
Unfortunately for the pro-union crowd, though, they have forced me to be positioned against them, because they cannot give up on their dumb idea of trying to force everyone who disagrees to join them.
This strategy backfires massively, as the only option it leaves me is to try and make them as powerless as possible because if they are crippled nation wide then they can't force me to join under threat of being fired.
I'd love it if both sides could coexist. But until universal right to work laws exist, that protect workers from being require to join or pay dues, we'll there can be no compromise.
Free rider problem. Same as “well, if you want government and society, pay taxes. If not, go ahead and opt out.”
Unions are only as good as their governance and oversight. Unions can be good, and work in partnership with management, but it takes time and effort. There is no one click button or app for collective protection of worker rights.
>
How about we change the laws so that people who support the union are free to join, and people who DON'T are free to leave?
>If unions are so great, then they should stand on their own 2 feet, instead of forcing everyone to join them.
If you can convince enough people, you can? But if people organize against you, be a good loser. Nobody except the very hardcore is saying:
>If private property is so great, then everyone who wants to have it should stand on their own 2 feet, instead of forcing everyone to accomodate them
to argue against private property or capitalism. But the same social contract that allows for private property can decide that if you want to have its benefits (e.g. the aforementioned private property) can recognize and protect the hard won rights of unions and workers. Stealing a bit of rhetoric, those who don't like it can go to some warlord ridden backwater, I hear there you are free to not follow any social contract if you are up to it
And this is why I will never ever support a union in my industry (tech) .
Fortunately, the rest of my industry agrees with me.
And ALSO, fortunately, union support is massively going down all across the US.
It looks like that social contract of yours is changing. Perhaps because of attitudes like yours.
I will not "be a good loser". I will oppose union efforts anywhere and everywhere, no matter what, because any power they get anywhere is a massive risk to me and my industry.
As soon as they get a foothold, they will implement rules that force me and others to join. It is safer to just stop them in their tracks before they can get even close to taking over.
And good on you, others will either agree or disagree with you. But I do wonder, why should you be allowed to stop union efforts if others aren't allowed to force you to join? And with whom would you...organize to stop union efforts?
The attitude of social contracts and not caring about people's free choice to not join unions. And thinking "oh, don't like unions, tough luck, go find another job or move to another country".
> But I do wonder, why should you be allowed to stop union efforts if others aren't allowed to force you to join?
But they ARE allowed to force me to join, under threat of being fired, in some states. So that's why.
If the US had universal right to work laws, where you could not be fired for refusing to join a union, then I wouldnt care and wouldn't bother organizing against unions.
The attitude of "screw you for standing up for your right to not join an organization" is very common among union supporters, which is the reason why I oppose them.
I organize against unions already, by supporting right to work laws, and supporting politicians who do as well, and donating to these efforts.
There are a ton of existing efforts to protect worker's rights of voluntary association, and their right to not join organizations that they don't support.
So you want to protect your free choice...by taking way the free choice of others to organize? For fear of something which does not happen because there is already a law against it?
>You are protected by law in all 50 states from being fired from your job for not joining a union. You can be only liable for no more than the requirement to pay either union dues or a reduced amount to work in an agency shop. If you refuse to join the union and refuse to pay the required dues, then you can be fired.
> So you want to protect your free choice...by taking way the free choice of others to organize
Yes. They want to do it to me, so why wouldn't I do it to them? That just puts me at a disadvantage for following rules that my opponents refuse to follow.
But "taking away their right to organize" is a bit of a stretch.
They should be able to "organize", in the colloquial sense of lobbying, talking to other people, expressing their opinion, and negotiating in groups, all they want in support of their cause.
Freedom of association, as defined in the first amendment of US Constitution, applies to them too.
And in turn, I will "organize" AGAINST their cause, as is also MY right.
Disagreeing with someone, and organizing against them, is not the same as taking away THEIR right to "organize".
And yes, you can be fired, if you refuse to pay the union required fee. That's the same thing as being forced to join. Go get your money from people who chose, of their own free will, to join.
And so will either increase prices or slow down delivery. Also, I don't know wether Italy has sane strike laws or not, but in Germany amazon would not be allowed to just fire the strikers, and there is and was non-negligible PR fallout from the strikes.
Just to present the full picture. In the end, either there will be a price found. But I'd say good for Italian workers for making the labour market more of a market
Just to make clear, I am not on either ones side here. Striking is a right in Italy and Germany, so the employees sure can do it. But the reality is how it is as well :/
> And so will either increase prices or slow down delivery.
Not really. Germany is small enough that it doesn't really matter if you get it from a German or a Polish warehouse (that sits directly behind the border). (Amazon Prime deliveries and similar stuff excluded - but that's a very small percentage)
> Also, I don't know wether Italy has sane strike laws or not, but in Germany amazon would not be allowed to just fire the strikers, and there is and was non-negligible PR fallout from the strikes.
You don't fire anyone. You just don't invest there any more to keep up with your xx% growth every year. You just do that behind the border.
> Just to make clear, I am not on either ones side here. Striking is a right in Italy and Germany, so the employees sure can do it. But the reality is how it is as well :/
I hope I didn't come off as aggressive. While I am very much on the sides of the workers here as a self identified socialist (since I run a company I don't really get much cred from most socialist in-groups though), I try not to be blind to market realities and alternative view points
>Not really. Germany is small enough that it doesn't really matter if you get it from a German or a Polish warehouse (that sits directly behind the border). (Amazon Prime deliveries and similar stuff excluded - but that's a very small percentage)
Margins matter at that scale, otherwise amazon would have never opened warehouses in Germany (they never did in switzerland AFAIK). Same thing with the "small percentage" of prime: anecdotaly, if I can't buy it with prime, I don't bother with amazon, because then I can just support some independent store. It won't affect people too much, but it is definetely not a no brainer.
>You don't fire anyone. You just don't invest there any more to keep up with your xx% growth every year. You just do that behind the border.
True. But then you also have politics to think about...without investing, you don't have as much indirect political clout.
If anything ,while the most likely outcome is what you describe, there will be the next time the question of an "amazon tax" comes up and without being an employer, amazon will have to invest more into lobbying, which might work but fuel resentment...nothing ever stays still, unless people just accept the status quo
> Not really. Germany is small enough that it doesn't really matter if you get it from a German or a Polish warehouse (that sits directly behind the border). (Amazon Prime deliveries and similar stuff excluded - but that's a very small percentage)
Incidentally, that's not exactly true. It's about a 6-8 hour drive from Berlin to the southwest by car, that would be around 10 hours or more by track, and only if you're not stuck in traffic and the place is right on the autobahn. Distance to the polish border adds an extra hour or two. This does not include any delay for handling packages in a distribution center. Next-day delivery would be very hard to achieve consistently from any location in the border-regions of Germany. There's a reason why one of the largest of Amazons German distribution centers is located in Bad Hersfeld, right here https://www.google.de/maps/place/Amazon+Logistik+GmbH+-+FRA1...
It's very much THE central point when it comes to traffic in Germany: Intersection of the A4, A7, A5/A6 giving you excellent routes into each part of Germany and close vicinity to the population centers in the Rhine and Ruhr valley
You're constructing a straw man here or maybe you're misinformed: A strike is a structured process that requires a prior vote by the union members. And people don't get paid during strike.
The people paying them must respect labor laws, which grant workers the right to strike without getting fired in civilized countries, so that the owner of the business can't exploit them without consequences.
Put it this way then: you can’t hire someone on a contract that doesn’t include the right for them to strike without being fired. Because that would be illegal.
So what they are doing is entirely within their employment contracts.
Wait, germany forces you to pay people who refuse to work? There must be some sort of miscommunication here. Why would german workers ever do their job? What if the entire region shuts down—would they still have to pay workers?
>The problem with pay transparency is not that it doesn't work; the problem is that the entire concept is immoral and evil. How much money you make is, properly, strictly a conversation between the parties in the transaction.
so how does this differ from any other good/transaction where we DO share prices? Why is it not immoral and evil that I can compare prices between amazon and walmart?
All the problem you describe can be resolved by employers either justifying themselves to their employees like adults, paying more, or the employees quitting. All of which are free market actions, the first of which having the added bonus of humanising the relationship. The only downside: you can't just treat your employees like "human resources" and get away with it as easily. You need to treat them as people
The difference is that every individual is unique in their ability to create value and their compensation preferences.
A product on Amazon has a market price - the thing being exchanged is an objective, metaphysical fact and people assign it a value. In areas of labor where the uniqueness of individuals is less of a factor, you will generally find that pay transparency is the norm. This is often unskilled/low-skilled labor in jobs that cannot offer meaningful non-pecuniary compensation.
But most people do not work in such jobs, and even in most manual labor jobs there is a strong element of applying your mind to do good work. As such, your purpose as an individual is much more important.
Pay transparency detrimental to you, as an individual. To live a happy life, you must figure out your own purpose and use your mind to achieve it. Happiness is not the result of income, nor is money required to be happy. Your happiness is a function of the achievement of the values you have defined for yourself. If you allow the income of others to influence your decision making, you are only hurting yourself. You should not leave a job that is satisfying in its essentials - that is, it fits with your purpose, you do meaningful work - merely because you discover someone else makes more; that would only hurt you. You don't know - can't know - their purpose, their value, their preferences, that lead to their income and work environment.
> Pay transparency detrimental to you, as an individual. To live a happy life, you must figure out your own purpose and use your mind to achieve it. Happiness is not the result of income, nor is money required to be happy. Your happiness is a function of the achievement of the values you have defined for yourself.
Perhaps someday I'll be less cynical, but I'll go ahead and say it: money might not be happiness, but it sure goes a long way to helping. If you need to work 80 hours / week just to keep food on the table and a roof over your head, leaving no time for you to express you own desires and wishes (and no money to do so), how are you supposed to be happy?
Money isn't directly happiness, but it helps in that you can acquire things that make you happy. For example, if my dream is to become a great guitar player, money towards instruments, lessons, etc. greatly helps. What if I want to see the world? That will cost money and time, which is often even more valuable than money.
> If you allow the income of others to influence your decision making, you are only hurting yourself.
If I find out that I'm getting screwed by my employer, and that I should ask for $20k/year more (which I can only know if I know the salary distribution for people of my trade, in my location), I fail to see how that can harm me. By the very definition, I'm being harmed every day I remain ignorant.
(Certainly, there are individuals who will chase the number, and let their hubris get ahead of them. They're not the people I think such initiatives are attempting to benefit. And I think the argument is that while such initiatives might not be perfect, they do more good than harm.)
>Pay transparency detrimental to you, as an individual. To live a happy life, you must figure out your own purpose and use your mind to achieve it. Happiness is not the result of income, nor is money required to be happy. Your happiness is a function of the achievement of the values you have defined for yourself. If you allow the income of others to influence your decision making, you are only hurting yourself. You should not leave a job that is satisfying in its essentials - that is, it fits with your purpose, you do meaningful work - merely because you discover someone else makes more; that would only hurt you. You don't know - can't know - their purpose, their value, their preferences, that lead to their income and work environment.
How about we let people judge that themselves? It's everyones job not to hurt themselves, so how about we make sure everyone has as much information as the most powerful in the room. Otherwise, let's make the top 1% "happier" and impose a 100% tax on all income more than 3 standard deviations from the median eh?
//edit: I saw in another comment, you talked about pay transparency not making the wages rise. It might now. But then it will cause people to quit jobs where they are not valued, increasing their happiness.
//edit2: also, you sidestepped the question. Humans are not as unique as random numbers, amazon goods are not all the same. If there are 5 brands of battery, we don't say it is immoral to share the prices and compare because "each brand carries its unique and special history". It's a battery, 5V, X watt, Y $. Likewise, if I get hired to design a product, they don't care about my extensive research in japanese mud ball culture. I'm a project designer, education X, working hours Y, pay Z, expected outcome for the company Z*(1+some positive number).
I've known only one other person to share that view; a toxic as fuck manager. What he (and I can be very confident you) are saying is "fuck you got mine". Income opens a lot of doors and letting a company (and those leading it) ride high off of your work just because the employee should be "living a happy life with what they have" is fucking bullshit.
If you're paying your employees porportional to the value they bring to the company (and both of you agree on this) there are no downsides to having transparent salaries. The system breaks down when the employees find out that the managers telling them "you don't need income to be happy" are making 5-10x everyone else while complaining that budgets are tight.
Sounds like the only benefit is keeping A in his delusion, instead of informing him via a competitive market that his skill is not as high as he thought he'd be. Oh, and saving the company money. And making it easier to have private favorites.
If someone is in an executive position, and something like you describe happens, it is their fucking job description to resolve the problem. Meanwhile, by having open salaries, everyone has the information needed for a competitive market. Including college graduates, who get screwed over routinely
//Edit: Oh, and if A ever DOES need to find a new job and advertises his "delusional" skills, either him or his next company will feel the pain from the lack of price information here
Companies not over-paying for their resources is generally a pretty critical factor in them staying solvent and being able to employ people, rather than a nice-to-have.
To put it another way, it's a pretty critical factor in ensuring that more wealth flows into profits rather than salaries and a way to keep sickly companies afloat via the deception of their employees.
What you, CGP Grey and other people tend to not say is that this is not a deterministic outcome of democracy at all. Even the second link you posted has some exceptions in the article . The book that the video is based on (the Dictators handbook, great read) contains some ways out of it dilemma. It shows how and why democracy is more efficient at creating wealth for a bigger number of people, and so there is a strong market pressure towards a free society. These forces can be smothered (e.g. by making pessimistic youtube videos because those get viral views) or tapped into and strengthened (by offering counter points, becoming active in your local political sphere etc.) Culture shapes us and is shaped by us. This is not a game where fate is a player (oh, and as a side note for those that need it, it is also in your personal monetary interest to become involved in politics, even if you do not get corrupt. Knowledge and connections are power, even without corrupt behaviour)
Neural plasticity is just an artifact of the brain not making a distinction between software and hardware. Any general-purpose digital computer has infinite "plasticity", being able to execute any program that can exist (modulo memory limitations).
neither can cars, but that doesn't stop cars from outperforming humans by some carefully chosen success criteria.
Nobody is going to measure silicon chips by their ability to self-replicate without external facilities. Your typical doomsday AI could just order more compute substrate from TSMC to take over the world.
Which is in fact more or less what happens in TFA.
Another one that annoys me: memory is on the wrong end of the bus! The brain would be terrible at inference if all the memories were stored in the ass. Instead, the brain has the correct design: keep all the data where the processing happens and stick IO out on the bus.
The wikipedia link mainly mentions crypto-methods...how exactly is a non-engineer supposed to end to end verify this? If you use paper ballots you can simply sit down and count...heck not even that basic math if you get creative with sorting
Not worthless. This has some clear assumptions on what holds. He looks at individuals playing a certain game, with no outside information. What the parent describes is two games: 1. Prisoners dilemma between each "slave" and the "master" 2. The actual tournament
Imagine if we all (and not just the left) talked about companies the same way we talk about unions, using the countless examples of managerial abuse, wage theft etc. as examples. Would you say that would be reasonable?
And preemptively, this is not a "both sides" question either. Everything is grey, but there are shades of grey. And while neither unions nor companies are perfect, both are at the same time vital to how things work right now and not above criticism. They both are definitely preferable to 1820s style enterprises for example, but worse than the Culture.