This really is the best way. Once there's a REASON for extra security, people understand and want to learn more.
No one cares. Nobody around you understands the security, the need for it, and the requirements. They will pretend, to see your kid. And then immediately and completely stop caring. It works for making people adopt your favourite messenger, yes. But nothing else.
I have two kids. I asked people to use signal to send and receive the photos. Asking people to follow your requirements only works for the direct immediate communication. The photos of my kids were sent by the recipients I sent them to (over signal) to other members of the family, over gmail (unencrypted), WhatsApp, Instagram, etc. I learned that years after.
This was in direct violation of my express requests. When I confronted them, they played dumb.
So, not to be a buzzkill here OP, but if you did this to get more people to use your messenger of choice, good job, it worked. If you did this so the pics of your kids stayed on safe apps, don't fool yourself. They didn't.
FIFY
You can live from your work without profit. Wages are a cost, not the result of profit.
This only works when you have enough capital to back it up. Can't switch to a salary-based remuneration model without having enough assets to make sure you don't default every other month. But yes indeed, you can do that, once you have made enough profits to have an appropriate capital for this use case.
I would argue it's very easy to see when greed begins - it's when people (shareholders) are paid without having done any work.
Yes, that is correct. However the appreciation of "work" is actually the hard part. If it wasn't, micromanagement wouldn't be a thing. So I guess we're saying the same thing, from different angles.
Obviously there is an argument that senior managers get paid disproportionately, but a part of that will always be stock for which they will continue to earn money without doing anything at all. At least their wage is paid for doing something.
Yeah, so, already, this is going into "hard to gauge" territory. Is the senior manager one of the founding members, that grew a business from nothing, eating pasta and sweating blood for years; is the senior manager one of the founding members, that just was a dick from day one, backed by inherited money or VC money; or is the senior manager someone who just joined along the way, and is now profiting off of the work of others?
See, in these 3 eventualities alone, only the first one actually has any kind of legitimacy for being paid and not doing much. Because then, it is a return on investment, and a pretty damn hard investment at that. However, even in that case, it is extremely easy to overdo it and end up paying yourself more than you would actually deserve, even with the all hard work, the initial risk and stress, and the dedication combined.
The other commenter misses a key point that under the current system to truly compete with megacorps you need investors to build scale.
I believe you don't necessarily need investors, but then, you need skill, wits, balls, and a whole lot of sheer luck. Oh, and a "sure thing" product/service too. Can't take any chances.
Independent companies can certainly reinvest their earnings rather than claiming them as profits, which is far better than having them siphoned off, but won't get you anywhere near the kind of cash that you need.
I mean, if you are truly starting a honest business, without much starting capital, and without much preexisting means (e.g. no privileged professional network, access to means of production at extremely low, or no cost, free raw materials/energy, etc), you can't really do it any other way. You gotta reinvest as much as possible, pay yourself the minimum viable amount (pasta/rice only, and necessities. No travel, no leisure, no comfort), to grow the business into something that can ultimately support your life in a more "normal" way.
And as soon as you have investors, they expect their cut.
The main problem with investors isn't even that. Them wanting their cuts is definitely a challenge. But the pressure they can exert on the management, the changes they can enact, the decisions they can force, that is the actual problem with investors. They aren't doing it just for the money. It is a domination kink.
How can you be so thick? If the problem was with profits, we'd have solved it essentially on day one of capitalism.
No, profits are good, it means you can live from your work.
The problem here is greed. And you know what? Unlike with finding out that you're too stupid to get this, finding out where profits stop and greed start is a hard problem. Not individually, because that is about when a business owner starts paying their workforce less and starts buying stupid useless crap to show their status or grow their comfort much beyond the average... No, systematically. Because differences in management style mean that sometimes it makes sense to shrink everyone's income (including the CEO's) to be able to address challenges. But you can't easily tell that apart from greed and dodging taxes.
Personally I have never considered that there would be a risk of the UBI recipients to spend the money unwisely.
People needing UBI have a very long standing experience of not getting what they need to minimise their losses on a daily basis, so of course they will invest in that first. They all probably have a ranked, itemised list of all that would help. And I'm willing to bet that said list, on average, would be at least 80% correct (the 20% being influenced by personal sensitivities and beliefs, like a vegan person spending more on plastic based clothing, that wears out faster).
People not needing UBI already have more money than they can find intelligent uses for, and so they already are spending money unwisely.
Nah, the part that concerns me is that as soon as we all get UBI, and I do mean the very next day, rents are gonna rise by 33% of the amount of the UBI, the cost of food will rise by 33% of the amount of the UBI, and the cost of all the rest combined will rise by 34% of the amount of the UBI. It will be back to square one, and all we will have achieved will be funnelling our taxes straight into the pockets of for profit, private megacorporations.
We need to "fix" that megacorporation problem first.
Yeah totally merge everything, people like a good spaghetti salad.
Yep, UBI trials worked exactly because they were trials. It was just for a part of the population, so "adjusting the prices" relatively to it would have meant that the majority of the customers would have probably consumed less.
But, make it a predictable, widespread action, and the biggest corporations will immediately find a way to funnel that "extra money" straight in their pockets. Probably while being so aggressive at it that it will have the direct opposed effect to the desired one: making the 99% of people poorer.
Exactly. This is just a greedy corp seeing the minimum wage increase as an opportunity to jack up the prices.
There is no way the increase in wages justifies such a pricing increase, with the volume they sell.
They saw an opportunity to abuse everyone and make the workers bear the responsibility for it, and so they rushed to it faster than matt gaetz rushes towards minors...
(> (explicit) (implicit))
Hey, for what it's worth, I appreciate your efforts to remain nice with an insufferable old man yelling at clouds. Thanks 🙏
And I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, this stuff is actually being read by more people than we know. Correctness matters. Even if that makes me beyond annoying to you.
I hope you have a great day and I wish you all the best. 🙂
I too, like OP, thought I found the grail when I got my kids. People suddenly accepted using my communication preferences. Only to find years later that they didn't. They didn't care, understand, or respected my wishes. Don't fool yourself: some people do care, but that is 10% tops.