[pydry]

"Impractical" and "not throwing away money" are really interesting choices of words when discussing why one of the world's richest companies gives PTO or health insurance.

[yanderekko]

I think it's a lot less interesting than people want to pretend it is. A company's willingness to throw away money should be largely invariant to its overall financial health.

[toomuchtodo]

I like that you're blunt about it, makes it much easier to reason why more regulation around labor is required.

"BigCorp will avoid as much labor costs as possible. To improve labor conditions and compensation, regulation must require it."

[yanderekko]

"To ensure that people only have good jobs, we must ensure that people who cannot get good jobs are unemployable."

[pydry]

>we must ensure that people who cannot get good jobs are unemployable

How are "we" doing that precisely?

[toomuchtodo]

"How can we justify Big Tech being worth trillions collectively without allowing them to treat their workers as interchangeable widgets at the lowest cost possible."

Which sounds better to an electorate? What are the odds your average citizen is ever going to be an ultra high net worth individual or work at a FAANG? I believe the odds are in regulatory favor.

Google has the resources (with gross profit ~$100 billion for 2020), they simply choose to evade labor law in this case.

[jschwartzi]

Except in this case "throw away money" is a euphemism for "paying workers enough that they don't need welfare to support their families."

[miked85]

How many Google contractors/employees are on welfare?