> for example, argues that relying on taxing shareholders instead of the corporation ignores foreign shareholders whose income isn't subject to US taxation.
And that is a good point to discuss/argue, regardless of the messenger. You could do the same with the previous resource as well; pull out points that you like/dislike and we discuss around that as opposed to shooting down any discussion because you don't like the messenger.
Who else is it about? If any sort of investigation is to be brought into it, the main investigation would be on behalf of consumers right?
> "single-handedly makes up 4% of the US economy"
Correction: 4% of the US stock market, not the US economy.
Regardless, is your argument that any company that is at a certain threshold % of the US economy/stock market should not do acquisitions or expand their business?
> - We are a start up working hard to launch so it wouldn't work for us. I read this as: "we've advertised this as full time, but really it's 24/7"
I think that's a reach. I fail to understand how you'd arrive at such a conclusion.
From my anecdotal experience, most startups would actually prefer paying more if that meant they could get 6 days of work. But regardless, I think your conclusion for that particular point is a reach, unless there is more context/information around this.
> I personally believe that working 4 days per week doesn't equate to 80% output, more like 90%, and therefore I feel the salary should reflect this.
I believe it is super difficult to generalize this. For some, it could be that 4 days per week = 70% of 5 days per week, and for some it could be that 4 days per week = 90% of 5 days per week as you mentioned. Now, if people fall into the category of 4 days > 80% output, then good for them no? They can finish 5 days worth of work in 4.25 days and chill out the rest of the time and take it easy? Especially in these times when most tech employees are WFH, they can simply just spend time with their family, catch up on a show, do some house errands, read books etc etc.
And that is a good point to discuss/argue, regardless of the messenger. You could do the same with the previous resource as well; pull out points that you like/dislike and we discuss around that as opposed to shooting down any discussion because you don't like the messenger.