I don't even want to work, but unfortunately food and shelter cost money.
It's all a trade-off. Don't be a founder, but then you have to put up with crazy company politics, feeling of meaninglessness, having a boss, and so on.
Personally I don't think anybody is entitled to a job, though. Hence my "I don't even want to work" statement. People have to do something to survive, that is just reality.
I think they removed that before going on their woke crusade, because they figured it is actually too vague. Different people consider different things evil.
But for individuals, I think it is still an OK choice to make to not work for companies they personally consider evil.
Why on earth should it not be OK for black people to use the service? And what is so "white" about it? Because black people are supposed to be activists and believe in identity politics? I follow plenty of black people on Twitter who don't belong to that crowd.
Have you ever wondered if is ok black people to use Hacker News? After all, it was created by white people? (I don't even know the skin color of the creators of "Unwoke.hr" - why do you assume they have to be white?).
Ironic, as that is exactly what the unwoke people think about the woke people. They see it as an ideology that you have to "take the knee" to, a ka "follow orders", to be accepted into the community.
Maybe some people (how many?) fail because of anxiety, but on the other hand, anybody who doesn't fail certainly has proven some minimal coding skills?
I usually took it as a positive if companies did some basic coding skill test, showing they at least cared that people can code.
Also, the people who fail because of anxiety, how will they fare in the normal job situation when they are supposed to discuss stuff on the whiteboard with colleagues?
Maybe the results could be taken as "give people who fail the coding interview another chance", but I wouldn't take it as "don't do coding interviews".
Just because somebody is rich, doesn't imply there are many resources. It's just a debt owed by society, which can also go bankrupt. Jeff Bezos earning another Billion does not imply more houses have been created or more plants have been reared and so on. It just means people bought stuff from him, in return for a promise to pay them back in the future (money is a promise of future goods). If Bezos decided today to buy loads of grain with his Billions, to feed the poor somehwere, that grain would be missing somewhere else.
The talk about "businesses that society should consider viable" is nonsense, as the example of the pensioner wanting someone to clean their apartment shows. What should they do if society doesn't consider them "viable", commit suicide?
If society doesn't deem some business "viable", they can simply refuse to work for that business.
If you want to create jobs "collectively", sorry to say, you are in full blown socialist territory, and you will fail, for the same reasons that socialism always fail (because planning economies can't assign resources efficiently enough).
You can use the internet for two more years to learn, THEN go into the wilderness. I would even allow you to take some tools from industrialization, maybe a knife made from steel and proper clothing and a tent. Fair?
As for suitable areas, there are still undiscovered tribes living in the Amazonas. I think you may still be able to find some places where you can live your dream.
Very few people can afford to pay other people a living wage. What's your point?
You only exhibit the socialist magic thinking again As if there are infinite resources, and the only problem is to redistribute them. That's not how the real work works. If you want to eat, somebody (possibly you) has to hunt or farm, gather resources, and so on. It's not a given that any number of people can simply earn a "living wage" or even have a job. Somebody has to create such jobs, that are productive enough to feed somebody.
Instead of complain about stinginess of businesses, prove your theories by creating jobs that pay better.
i say that "living wage" nonsense is hate speech. You are not just saying "oh those businesses can't afford to pay a living wage", you are saying they are greedy and make people poor and so on.
And the full-time job is not a valid argument. So if some company were to split their jobs into part time jobs, it would make it OK for you? I rather doubt that.
And why would you say that is the case? Bad personal finance skills (high mortgage, student debt...)?
How many people even try to negotiate their work hours? I'd believe you if you claimed less than 10% even think about it, the others just accept their lot as the norm.