Maybe try something where you decide you have to log in every day, you have to look at the total balance, but you don't have to *do* anything about it, and you don't have to look at individual line item? That seems like it might get rid of some of the negative association.
+1 to take the money and bounce - if you have good reason to believe the company wouldn't do right by you (and it sounds like you do), you certainly aren't obligated to put your own finances at risk for their convenience, and I don't think anyone who works there (with the exception of the awful boss) would blame you.
I think @vanderlyn's claim is that businesses, regardless of the wealth of their owners, are not helpless in the face of real estate market changes. If this was a discussion of 'retenanting' apartments, that's a different situation for a lot of reasons. That said, signing a multi-year lease as suggested requires that the building owner be willing to sign that as well; if it's uncommon to do so in your area, that might not be an option. Owning the building outright requires access to capital, which owners of small businesses in poor parts of town often don't have. It's also the case that pre-gentrification, these businesses didn't have a 'great location' that they needed to protect, and expecting them to cut in to slim profit margins to get a longer lease just in case their area gets hit by gentrification in the next 5 years seems a bit extreme.
I also agree that these workers should be paid, but given that the verdict was unanimous, it sounds like an issue that Congress would have to address (ha). I can also understand this being a fuzzy area - your employer probably also requires that you get dressed before coming in, and spend time getting to the office, but is definitely not going to compensate you for those activities. It sounds like lengthy security screenings are similar, for pay purposes, to having a really out-of-the-way office.
It sounds like he got fired in the middle of his internship? As opposed to just not getting a full-time offer? If that's the case, it had nothing to do with a 'hunger for marketing', that was just the boss being nice. Generally speaking, you have to be a major, active problem to not make it to the end of an internship. Maybe one of the folks he was following to the bathroom reported him for harassment?
@garli Seriously. The bathrooms are always spotless, and I rarely see anyone else there, since there's only 5 women on our floor.
I guess I think it's weird to describe it as 'not making money' or a 'loss' when you still did make money, just not enough to pay the full salary you were expecting. Based on his numbers, he could have paid the 6 folks involved a bit over $1000 a week (or, annualized with 2 weeks off, more than the median household income in the US each) and broken even. While it's true that the tour did not earn enough to afford paying them each an annualized salary of $73k, it seems like perhaps poor planning was the reason for his credit card debt, rather than something inherent in the economics of creativity/music creation.
While I agree with vaderlyn's point that defining 'family' is not the right way to handle traffic/density concerns, I can also understand why if that's the only existing limitation on density, people might not want it removed. Density is also a concern that can't be hand-waved away with 'noise ordinance' and 'traffic regulation' - the streets necessary to handle high density are (a) often difficult to retrofit and (b) a decidedly different living experience than living on a rarely-traveled road. While I'm sure there are some classist/ridiculous folks involved with this issue, I also don't see why it's necessarily wrong to say 'this is zoned for low-density housing, and there are now folks using it for high-density housing. This has traffic/noise/parking implications that folks who like low-density housing don't want, and moved here in no small part because it was low-density.' If the outcome were regulations that deal with density (no more than 4 adults per 6,000/ft lot, say, or some other, similar standard), that seems like that would be a lot clearer for everyone. Then, if the cohabitating folks are actually occupying a mansion on a mansion-sized lot, everything's fine (double lot = double people); if they aren't, then they need to move elsewhere. As tempting as it is to say 'but they aren't a problem!', the neighbors are right about precedent/slippery slope - if you care about density, then any one household having a few extra folks isn't a problem, but many households doing so is, and the only fair way to deal with that is to not let anyone skirt the rules. Or you could argue that there shouldn't be any low-density housing in the city, period, and that if what you want is low-density housing, you need to move to the suburbs; maybe that's the author's point, but it sure doesn't come across that way.
I've run into this with 'dude'. Since moving to the west coast, I've seen it used as a gender-neutral term of address, and become very used to that. This really startled a coworker, though - upon hearing me addressed with 'hey dude, how's it going?', they started to take umbrage on my behalf ('What? Doesn't that bother you?'), and I gave them a blank stare for a good 10 seconds before I realized what they were objecting to. Partly as a result of that, I will very rarely object to any term that someone uses to identify me, as long as they seem friendly, but will generally not direct any informal identifiers to someone I don't know.
+1 to the folks who say this is a great idea in theory, bad in practice. Having worked at companies with this policy, and ones without, the ones with limited vacation were much better about employees actually using their vacation - at the 'unlimited vacation' place, they switched to the policy because it was better for their books to not have to pay out for unused vacation time; there was unused vacation time because it was difficult to take vacations. So all that changed was folks effectively got paid less, and burnout from never taking time off was a huge problem.