6 ms·

I don't think you've sufficiently proven the argument which the rest of your statements hinge on: "People are always going to make choices in their economic sel

I don't think you've sufficiently proven the argument which the rest of your statements hinge on: "People are always going to make choices in their economic self-interest". It's an attractive (if somewhat cynical) point, but it's no more reasonable than any other generalisation. Not very.

watwat1 8y ago
It’s patently obvious. No sane individual will systematically go against his economic self interest.
notfromhere 8y ago
If anything, voting patterns in the US prove this wrong.
- zaroth 8y ago
  Tax reform means my organically growing startup gets to keep 33% more of our profit to reinvest back into the company, which has meaningfully impacted our annual budget and growth trajectory. VC funded startups get the advantage of growing ahead of profit, and booking tax losses which they can carry forward. Bootstrapping means growth driven by profit, which necessitates paying income taxes on the ever growing cash balance which flows from growing revenues & expenses (e.g. always having 3 months operating expenses in the bank)
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    Ok. But the "working class" people who voted Trump in don't get to see any of those gains. They at best got a one time bonus, which is still taxed at higher rates, and in exchange, they get cuts to many of the services they rely on.
    - zaroth 8y ago
      The gains to the working class is seen in the lowest unemployment numbers ever, a rising workforce participation rate, and starting to see the first wage growth for the working class in decades. That’s because that extra 33% in our bank balance means more marketing spending, more inventory, more open reqs for hiring sale, marketing, support, and engineering, etc. etc. E.g. This WSJ post which is also on the front page: “U.S. Workers Get Biggest Pay Increase in Nearly a Decade” https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-employment-costs-rose-in-the-second-quarter-1533040473 https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-employment-costs-rose-in-th...
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        "The gains to the working class is seen in the lowest unemployment numbers ever" Which isn't being accompanied by wage gains, and were going up long before the tax cuts happened. "That’s because that extra 33% in our bank balance means more marketing spending, more inventory, more open reqs for hiring sale, marketing, support, and engineering, etc. etc." Which is great, except the vast majority of companies are using that 33% for stock buybacks.
        zaroth 8y ago
        > Which is great, except the vast majority of companies are using that 33% for stock buybacks. That’s certainly a popular talking point, but I think frankly it’s impossible; “Publicly traded companies constitute less than 1 percent of all U.S. firms and about one-third of U.S. employment in the non-farm business sector.”
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        "That’s certainly a popular talking point, but I think frankly it’s impossible;" Think what you want, but you're not entitled to your own facts. And the facts show that, most publicly traded companies used the money for buybacks, and that wages did not grow very much in the last quarter, which one would expect if these tax cuts were going to go to wages. Which they didn't.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
  - KirinDave 8y ago
    > Tax reform means my organically growing startup gets to keep 33% more of our profit to reinvest back into the company, which has meaningfully impacted our annual budget and growth trajectory. There's no doubt that we get better tax solutions in the short term. Long term, it makes government services we rely upon to sustain our business untenable. This is the problem with an "economic self-interest" argument: scale matters. There's also the point that in the grand scheme of things, our companies don't matter and their short term windfalls shouldn't come at the cost of funding for education and social services that make it possible to sustain a healthy economy in the future. I certainly don't think my nascent company is more important than funding public education for the next generation in my country.
jtx22 8y ago
Its patently obvious. No sane individual will systematically go against their economy self interest.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- maneesh 8y ago
  You may wish to look into behavioral economics [1], a system of psychology + decision making that looks deeply at how individuals often do go against their economic (and other) self-interests. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  I mean, mental health in this country has long been neglected, but I'm not sure that explains it all.
kolbe 8y ago
What? His argument doesn't require that statement to hold true. His statement only requires a very small percentage of people who're in the solar industry to make choices in their own economic self-interest.

watwat1 8y ago

It’s patently obvious. No sane individual will systematically go against his economic self interest.

notfromhere 8y ago

If anything, voting patterns in the US prove this wrong.

zaroth 8y ago
Tax reform means my organically growing startup gets to keep 33% more of our profit to reinvest back into the company, which has meaningfully impacted our annual budget and growth trajectory. VC funded startups get the advantage of growing ahead of profit, and booking tax losses which they can carry forward. Bootstrapping means growth driven by profit, which necessitates paying income taxes on the ever growing cash balance which flows from growing revenues & expenses (e.g. always having 3 months operating expenses in the bank)
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Ok. But the "working class" people who voted Trump in don't get to see any of those gains. They at best got a one time bonus, which is still taxed at higher rates, and in exchange, they get cuts to many of the services they rely on.
  - zaroth 8y ago
    The gains to the working class is seen in the lowest unemployment numbers ever, a rising workforce participation rate, and starting to see the first wage growth for the working class in decades. That’s because that extra 33% in our bank balance means more marketing spending, more inventory, more open reqs for hiring sale, marketing, support, and engineering, etc. etc. E.g. This WSJ post which is also on the front page: “U.S. Workers Get Biggest Pay Increase in Nearly a Decade” https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-employment-costs-rose-in-the-second-quarter-1533040473 https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-employment-costs-rose-in-th...
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      "The gains to the working class is seen in the lowest unemployment numbers ever" Which isn't being accompanied by wage gains, and were going up long before the tax cuts happened. "That’s because that extra 33% in our bank balance means more marketing spending, more inventory, more open reqs for hiring sale, marketing, support, and engineering, etc. etc." Which is great, except the vast majority of companies are using that 33% for stock buybacks.
      - zaroth 8y ago
        > Which is great, except the vast majority of companies are using that 33% for stock buybacks. That’s certainly a popular talking point, but I think frankly it’s impossible; “Publicly traded companies constitute less than 1 percent of all U.S. firms and about one-third of U.S. employment in the non-farm business sector.”
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        "That’s certainly a popular talking point, but I think frankly it’s impossible;" Think what you want, but you're not entitled to your own facts. And the facts show that, most publicly traded companies used the money for buybacks, and that wages did not grow very much in the last quarter, which one would expect if these tax cuts were going to go to wages. Which they didn't.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
- KirinDave 8y ago
  > Tax reform means my organically growing startup gets to keep 33% more of our profit to reinvest back into the company, which has meaningfully impacted our annual budget and growth trajectory. There's no doubt that we get better tax solutions in the short term. Long term, it makes government services we rely upon to sustain our business untenable. This is the problem with an "economic self-interest" argument: scale matters. There's also the point that in the grand scheme of things, our companies don't matter and their short term windfalls shouldn't come at the cost of funding for education and social services that make it possible to sustain a healthy economy in the future. I certainly don't think my nascent company is more important than funding public education for the next generation in my country.

jtx22 8y ago

Its patently obvious. No sane individual will systematically go against their economy self interest.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
maneesh 8y ago
You may wish to look into behavioral economics [1], a system of psychology + decision making that looks deeply at how individuals often do go against their economic (and other) self-interests. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics
s73v3r_ 8y ago
I mean, mental health in this country has long been neglected, but I'm not sure that explains it all.

kolbe 8y ago

What? His argument doesn't require that statement to hold true. His statement only requires a very small percentage of people who're in the solar industry to make choices in their own economic self-interest.