It was a slim majority of those who actually voted, so less than half of eligible voters. There are many, many people who are not happy with how things are going.
It doesn't matter. If it's not our (I'm from the U.S.) fault, then whose fault is it? We all, collectively, are ultimately responsible for the outcome of the election. It was our job to convince everyone, including those who didn't vote, to vote for the opposition instead. We failed.
People who are hurt by the policies of this administration aren't going to say "gee, one third of the United States really sucks." Nor should they. Right now, the United States sucks. The onus is on us, all of us, to fix it.
Every time there's a school shooting, somebody defends gun rights "because muh well-armed militias" - I'm yet to see that put into action. Or maybe the well-armed militias are happy with the "progress".
Sure, we’re quibbling over when we measure the status quo. I’m measuring it across the election, pre and post. If you don’t vote you effectively endorsed the outcome even if you came up with some bizarre logic around why that isn’t the case. (Similarly, a vote for a third party in a swing state is de facto a vote for the major candidate you wouldn’t have voted for.)
To the point here, Americans who didn’t vote bear responsibility for our current political situation.
In this particular election, it doesn’t feel like non-voters get a pass. Even people outside the US were constantly inundated by what was at stake. In 2016, sure, everyone was caught by surprise. In 2024, non-voters don’t get to complain about the result, they have themselves to blame.
This is true for all elections where majority rules and voting is optional. Not voting effectively is an endorsement of whoever ends up winning. By not voting you are saying "I am OK with whoever wins."
A huge number felt they had to vote for the lesser of two bad choices. I think many that voted for Trump were naive and are genuinely surprised at what they are seeing. At least I’d like to think so, despite what you might find on forums.
I've been doing 20 hours/week with occasional "overtime" periods i.e. 30-40 hours during crunch for the last 15 years and can't imagine ever doing full-time again. The QoL improvements are truly unbeatable, granted I take a huge pay-cut but life is more important than money.
As an employer, expecting all the benefits listed in top of thread (unlimited time off, health benefits, etc) and part time status combined with what is likely a pay rate high enough to do well on part time income, etc. This type of expectation is exactly why you’re unemployed for >1 year. If you actually want work you can find it. You’re effectively being stubborn on trying to sell a $1m house that the market values at $500k. No one is going to force you to lower your prices but the market isn’t sad about your house being unsold for over a year either. The market is moving without you.
I’m sure there’s various nuances to this and I’m assuming you are actively looking for work versus passively waiting for a perfect situation where a buyer loves your house enough to pay a premium but this actually sounds kinda disconnected from reality if that’s not the case.
in germany that's actually the law (except for the unlimited time off). you can't hire a contractor on a permanent part-time basis unless that contractor has other clients at the same time.
and the rest of the argument makes no sense. even as a contractor you'll have to pay enough to make up for the benefits they'd otherwise be getting (pro-rated of course. half the work time means half the value of benefits included). the average contracting rate is twice as high as the average salary for a reason.
I wasn’t really trying to make a global statement. The audience here skews a certain way and My assumption is this attitude is the US Bay Area tech workers, or other exFAANG, used to making >$300k USD and would be glad to make make half part time, probably living in another locale where that translates to megabucks and they still get all the other benefits. It just doesn’t exist for a reason here.
ok, with those assumptions, i agree of course. it doesn't make sense to expect bay area pay for remote work. full or part-time. but i don't see that expectation in the thread, which is why your response seemed a bit odd. for myself i'd be happy with $50k USD remote part-time. is that more realistic?
I'm talking in generalizations of course. Although I did a quick google search and it seems you are asking roughly 1.5-2x going rates in Germany even for experienced devs. I'm sure your more aware of market rates in your locale than me but it feels like I'm paying a premium at this price. For me, it would have to match up with some specialized skills or some 'reason' to justify it.
The larger view I hold, that many don't agree with, is a) if I've already decided to go remote and b) my budget is $50k then c) I could hire a small team in India/Asia. I've personally never had problems sourcing talent in those locales with my types of workloads; which I admit are rather basic (web apps, ios, devops, etc). I'm not sure if that would be the case if I was building something hard like a new database or something.
i was looking at the US market. and i am talking about the upper bound of the range that i think i can ask for. for germany my expectations are lower. since so many applications ask for a salary expectations (some requiring a number to be filled in to even be able to submit the application), it matters to pick a good number. it shouldn't be to low, nor to high.
Definitely your choice to make in terms of what salary you'd accept however I don't really understand the strategy of yours. I, or any US company, could just hire in the US if I was paying higher US rates. I could avoid the timezone issues, potential language issues, would be easier to get together in person if ever needed, etc. and I don't have to learn/concern myself with German employment laws.
All things equal, skills and such, I think it would be fairly easy to find a US based candidate at this price for part-time work. So why would I bother hiring from another country unless it saves me money?
there is no strategy. i see a job that is not limited to US only, that fits my qualifications and i apply. if there is a question about salary, i try to guess what i should put there. i am afraid if i don't put enough it is also a negative selection criteria. so that is what i am trying to figure out now. for jobs that don't even ask for a salary it's a moot point.
I don't have to learn/concern myself with German employment laws
if you don't have a subsidiary in the EU or some kind of employer of record through which you hire someone one from the EU, then the employment laws would not be relevant to you. it would just be a contractor relationship.
why would I bother hiring from another country unless it saves me money?
good point. definitely something to consider. thank you.
Part-time. When I put in overtime, I book those hours into our time-management system which I can use at a later date to take time off when things slow down.
I’m not sure. If I don’t click on one that is a bus it won’t let me forward. It’s not like I click an “Ok, I’m done” button. I guess we could all delay clicking and maybe it would give up and assume the unknown bus wasn’t really a bus after all?
