5 ms·

if there's really a scarcity, then there shouldn't be a problem paying higher wages as these bills require right - especially given how huge money-spinners succ

by sfifs 10y ago

if there's really a scarcity, then there shouldn't be a problem paying higher wages as these bills require right - especially given how huge money-spinners successful drug molecules can be.

readhn 10y ago
Yes, there is a problem paying 130k. For a masters or even phd straight out of school that's a lot. (I'm excluding you living in bubbles like SF).
- smsm42 10y ago
  Even in SF not exactly everybody makes that much. And note that SF is in California, which is a high-tax state. So the cost of $130k salary is much higher than that (and you get to actually keep quite less than that). And SF specifically has long been gunning for levying additional payroll tax on top of that.
- sfifs 10y ago
  Relative to what? There's no such thing as an absolute "that's a lot". If you poke into it, you'll probably find that the "lot" assumption is typically "relative to what other masters and PhDs from universities are paid". So why not hire them instead?
smsm42 10y ago
You seem to be assuming that salaries are based only on scarcity. This is of course wrong - they also are based on available budgets. If there's nobody to hire for available money, the result may be not more money offered, but less startups surviving. Startup can be hugely successful - but more likely it would be wasted money. Salary floor means more money wasted, means higher risk, means less startups. Or at least less startups located in the jurisdiction having price floors.
- sfifs 10y ago
  I don't at all assume that and nothing constrains you from hiring your own citizens at lower salaries if they'll accept them or investing in training them, making your colleges more accessible and affordable etc. The proposals merely say if you want to hire non Americans, pay more. If you don't want to invest in training your citizens and also don't want to pay more to hire outsiders, maybe you should relook at your business model or incorporate in another country. This level of open regulatory capture, gaming of the system and not looking out for the interests of the 99% strikes me as dangerous and destabilizing over the long term (but you know that already - that's why Trump won). No one wants a de-stabilized nuclear power. I'm saying this as a citizen of a country that will certainly get affected by any of these proposed restrictions.
  - smsm42 10y ago
    > nothing constrains you from hiring your own citizens at lower salaries Except if those are not available, or do not want to work for this salary, e.g. because fringe benefits of the position (getting into US, visa being handled by somebody else, etc.) do not apply to them. Or just because they are used to much higher standards of living and demand salary that pays for well located apartment in SF, new Tesla car, etc. while some other people would be OK living with roommates and using public transportation. > making your colleges more accessible and affordable I'm not sure how a startup should go about making colleges more accessible and affordable. And why more accessible college necessarily would produce more highly qualified professionals exactly required by this startup and not just more people with college diploma, which means increasingly less as everybody has them now. > The proposals merely say if you want to hire non Americans, pay more. That is an import tariff. Tariffs are measures that harm consumers and destroy value, ask any economist. > not looking out for the interests of the 99% You are assuming 99% have the same interest. It is not true - it's more likely you ascribe a narrow interest to a lot of people without even trying to consider what their actual interests are. > No one wants a de-stabilized nuclear power. That's not even an argument. "I am right because you will lead to a nuclear war". Really?
    - sfifs 10y ago
      > Except if those are not available, or do not want to work for this salary, e.g. because fringe benefits of the position (getting into US, visa being handled by somebody else, etc.) do not apply to them. Or just because they are used to much higher standards of living and demand salary that pays for well located apartment in SF, new Tesla car, etc. while some other people would be OK living with roommates and using public transportation. In such a case, the point of view of your democratically elected representatives & president seems to be that either you should pay more or you should relocate your business to another country where you'll find people working for lower salary. Your choices therefore are - become politically active & work to change the new policy, figure out ways to game the new policy (which is what led to the mess in the first place) or rethink your business model. > That is an import tariff. Tariffs are measures that harm consumers and destroy value, ask any economist. Unfortunately, the social harm that results from ordinary people losing their livelihood or hope of bettering their lives (as opposed to go-getting business-owners) tends to not enter the calculations of academic economists. Politicians of course have always instinctively understood this (Idle hands are a devil's workshop - to give you an idea of how old this is) and that's why they ignore the advice of economists & impose import tariffs in the real world.

by sfifs 10y ago

if there's really a scarcity, then there shouldn't be a problem paying higher wages as these bills require right - especially given how huge money-spinners successful drug molecules can be.

readhn 10y ago

Yes, there is a problem paying 130k. For a masters or even phd straight out of school that's a lot. (I'm excluding you living in bubbles like SF).

smsm42 10y ago
Even in SF not exactly everybody makes that much. And note that SF is in California, which is a high-tax state. So the cost of $130k salary is much higher than that (and you get to actually keep quite less than that). And SF specifically has long been gunning for levying additional payroll tax on top of that.
sfifs 10y ago
Relative to what? There's no such thing as an absolute "that's a lot". If you poke into it, you'll probably find that the "lot" assumption is typically "relative to what other masters and PhDs from universities are paid". So why not hire them instead?

smsm42 10y ago

You seem to be assuming that salaries are based only on scarcity. This is of course wrong - they also are based on available budgets. If there's nobody to hire for available money, the result may be not more money offered, but less startups surviving. Startup can be hugely successful - but more likely it would be wasted money. Salary floor means more money wasted, means higher risk, means less startups. Or at least less startups located in the jurisdiction having price floors.

sfifs 10y ago
I don't at all assume that and nothing constrains you from hiring your own citizens at lower salaries if they'll accept them or investing in training them, making your colleges more accessible and affordable etc. The proposals merely say if you want to hire non Americans, pay more. If you don't want to invest in training your citizens and also don't want to pay more to hire outsiders, maybe you should relook at your business model or incorporate in another country. This level of open regulatory capture, gaming of the system and not looking out for the interests of the 99% strikes me as dangerous and destabilizing over the long term (but you know that already - that's why Trump won). No one wants a de-stabilized nuclear power. I'm saying this as a citizen of a country that will certainly get affected by any of these proposed restrictions.
- smsm42 10y ago
  > nothing constrains you from hiring your own citizens at lower salaries Except if those are not available, or do not want to work for this salary, e.g. because fringe benefits of the position (getting into US, visa being handled by somebody else, etc.) do not apply to them. Or just because they are used to much higher standards of living and demand salary that pays for well located apartment in SF, new Tesla car, etc. while some other people would be OK living with roommates and using public transportation. > making your colleges more accessible and affordable I'm not sure how a startup should go about making colleges more accessible and affordable. And why more accessible college necessarily would produce more highly qualified professionals exactly required by this startup and not just more people with college diploma, which means increasingly less as everybody has them now. > The proposals merely say if you want to hire non Americans, pay more. That is an import tariff. Tariffs are measures that harm consumers and destroy value, ask any economist. > not looking out for the interests of the 99% You are assuming 99% have the same interest. It is not true - it's more likely you ascribe a narrow interest to a lot of people without even trying to consider what their actual interests are. > No one wants a de-stabilized nuclear power. That's not even an argument. "I am right because you will lead to a nuclear war". Really?
  - sfifs 10y ago
    > Except if those are not available, or do not want to work for this salary, e.g. because fringe benefits of the position (getting into US, visa being handled by somebody else, etc.) do not apply to them. Or just because they are used to much higher standards of living and demand salary that pays for well located apartment in SF, new Tesla car, etc. while some other people would be OK living with roommates and using public transportation. In such a case, the point of view of your democratically elected representatives & president seems to be that either you should pay more or you should relocate your business to another country where you'll find people working for lower salary. Your choices therefore are - become politically active & work to change the new policy, figure out ways to game the new policy (which is what led to the mess in the first place) or rethink your business model. > That is an import tariff. Tariffs are measures that harm consumers and destroy value, ask any economist. Unfortunately, the social harm that results from ordinary people losing their livelihood or hope of bettering their lives (as opposed to go-getting business-owners) tends to not enter the calculations of academic economists. Politicians of course have always instinctively understood this (Idle hands are a devil's workshop - to give you an idea of how old this is) and that's why they ignore the advice of economists & impose import tariffs in the real world.