Video of Eric Schmidt blaming remote work for Google's woes mysteriously vanishes | TechCrunch
techcrunch.com
Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who has since moved on to greener and perhaps more dangerous pastures, told an audience of Stanford students recently that

Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who has since moved on to greener and perhaps more dangerous pastures, told an audience of Stanford students recently that “Google decided that work-life balance and going home early and working from home was more important than winning.” Evidently this hot take was not for wider consumption, as Stanford — which posted the video this week on YouTube — today made the video of the event private.

  • paf0@lemmy.worldEnglish
    118·
    4 months ago

    Overall, not without raising taxes though. The money just doesn’t stop getting spent by people and appear in the government budget without it.

    • SeaJ@lemm.eeEnglish
      11·
      4 months ago

      If your “taxes” go up by $7 but your health insurance costs go down by $10, why the hell would you care? There are several more dollars in your pocket. Or if you are concerned about tax amount, let’s rename current health insurance fees to taxes and we can simply market Medicare for All as a massive tax cut that increases service.

        • SeaJ@lemm.eeEnglish
          5·
          4 months ago

          I’m aware. However, it is good exercise and may help others fight ridiculous arguments.

      • paf0@lemmy.worldEnglish
        117·
        4 months ago

        Where does that math come from? I can’t think of anything that got more efficient just because the government got involved.

        I love the idea of Medicare For All but it should be a choice for people who want it.

        • SeaJ@lemm.eeEnglish
          9·
          4 months ago

          The $100+ billion per year comes from an analysis of Sanders’ Medicare for All plan by the libertarian think tank Cato Institute. So basically the worst case scenario that is very unlikely.

          The $7 tax vs $10 date insurance is hypothetical to make a point. But if you want a real world example, you can compare our largely private system with countries that have socialized systems. 19% of our GDP goes towards healthcare costs vs 11-12% how other developed countries. So if we had something like theirs, most people would get a 10% raise in their income.

          It would not be Medicare for All nor a better deal if people could simply opt out. Republicans would simply whittle it down to being worthless otherwise.