Not necessarily. Both people can be correct, but arguing just to "win". Both people can also be wrong.
KevonLooney
joined 1 year ago
Those jobs pay more, not less. They trust you more so they give you more leeway.
A nuclear plant can't "produce 24/7 regardless of conditions". Obviously natural disasters affect them. Nuclear plants need water so any flooding or tsunami can affect them. They also need maintenance because they are very complicated water boilers.
They require a lot of educated people to run them, whereas a wind turbine requires a few guys to check on them sometimes. Solar just requires some dudes to brush off the panels occasionally. That can probably be automated too.
That's how startups are. You accept more risk. Startups are the definition of risky and this is not an argument for staying at a company that doesn't listen to you.
You can always just move to a different startup. People respect you more in the startup world if you take a risk and lose due to factors beyond your control.
The progression isn't Amazon -> normal role at normal company, it's Amazon -> high growth startup or company that will worship your knowledge. Startups have a higher ceiling and the major company role may be more prestigious.
Amazon is going to push their best people out the door.
They "may" lose employees to other companies that pay the same but offer WFH.
LinkedIn is used to get jobs and chat with former coworkers. You are just looking at the public posts. It's like how Facebook is a cesspool publicly, but your private chats with your network may be normal.
There are many ways to legally do this. They may just adhere to regulations more strictly. Where before they would bend the rules to help out.
They might just schedule Tesla's mail for the end of the day and be extra "careful" that day. Oops, there wasn't enough time to deliver their mail! Maybe after a few days of a customer's mail building up, there's a rule saying the customer has to come in and get it themselves. Following all the rules exactly will fuck up any system because they are rarely created with overall productivity in mind.
It does require work. Most businesses have competitors. Most billionaires are extremely competitive people because it takes a lot of effort and luck to get to the top.
Does it contribute to society? No, not really. But it does require a lot of work. Look at the difference between old money and new money families.
Old money families are the ones that don't work, because they are just normal people with a ton of money. New money families had to work really hard and be really lucky. They literally don't know how to slow down and relax.
At a minimum, we need stronger regulations, higher wages, and higher corporate taxes to make these people and their money work for us.
One-upping is aggressive. The better way to say it would be: "there was a more ambitious project that would have worked, but unfortunately ran out of money".
For a 2 br 1 ba that's huge. And if there's no mortgage, a person could easily be a millionaire when you include their retirement funds.
My point is, it's not an exception. There are many millionaires currently living in Compton. A million dollars isn't what it used to be.
The new staff are not necessary "ignorant". There's a limited amount of work you can do in one day/week/month.