anthonygd

I read it on my honeymoon 25 years ago. That book sticks with you.

Why do you think that would be relevant?

> As long as you are satisfied with the productivity of that employee, what does it really matter if they produce their output in 10 hours or 40?

I have different expectations depending on whether you worked 10 or 40 hours. The _reality_ is that you and your employer need to come to an agreement on expectations.

There fundamentally is going to be conflict in any system of checks and balances. Neither the SCOTUS nor POTUS get to unilaterally decide the limits.

Trump hasn't been following convention, but that doesn't mean he's wrong. We also can't just assume he's right. Having the 3 branches hash out a balance is perfectly reasonable and confirms the system is working as intended.

I would assume because you're just trying to change the topic.

It is extremely difficult to take seriously.

I'm mostly seeing people who voted against this continue to grumble.

> What of the people whose jobs aren't WFH compatible? "They get what they get?"

What's your proposal here? Should I be forced into the office because it increases the chances I'll buy coffee instead of making it at home?

Macro economic changes are always painful. This is a gross simplification, but cities exist because of an economic network effect based on proximity. Network effects tend to be somewhat stable because they tend to change slowly, but they do change.

I agree with most of what you wrote, but not the implication that NYC value is obvious.

>You really don't see the value of New York beyond its office buildings?

I like to visit NYC a couple times a year, but absolutely don't want to live there. If the number of people who physically work there goes down, so will the reasons it's nice to visit.

I don't think I can properly explain my thought process here, but I do think of big cities as anachronistic and little inhuman. All those nice things in a city depend on a large number of lower income people being forced to live there by economic opportunity. That's not necessarily bad but frequently lower income residents don't get to enjoy the services they provide.

I say anachronistic because as people increase in economic freedom, their desires adjust and they frequently move, e.g. everything else being equal people will choose a 700 sq.ft. apartment over a 180 sq.ft. apartment. If the ratio of high income to low income residents shifts too far in either direction, cities go through a painful re-balancing process that may or may not land on it being good or pleasant (by some subjective standards) place afterwards.

> the US should have universal public healthcare. It's basic function of a competent nation state.

Why do you say that? What do you mean by "healthcare"?

Food is much more fundamental than healthcare but isn't really provided by any nation state. Where do you draw the line between what the state provides and what citizens are responsible for? How do you pick that line? Why is your opinion worth any more than another random persons?

> being able to think critically.

That was strongly discouraged long ago when I was in school. Completely unheard of when my daughter was in school. Sounds like you're grasping at straws here; standardized test scores are pretty terrible but you're suggesting kids are able to think more critically now that they can't do arithmetic?

> Primary implies the lack of localization

No, it doesn't.