3 ms·

2. Think of it like term limits. We don't let people sit in office forever just because it's a free country. No, these are constraints implemented democraticall

by csee 5y ago

2. Think of it like term limits. We don't let people sit in office forever just because it's a free country. No, these are constraints implemented democratically by voters to protect against bad outcomes that aren't well addressed by future direct voting. 3. You would reduce the pool of people who have corrupt intent. Owning individual stocks isn't more profitable than owning ETFs.

sokoloff 5y ago
Owning individual stocks (even temporarily or unvested) is a substantial fraction of compensation of many people that I want to be able to participate in local politics.
- csee 5y ago
  Owning individual stocks is the same expected value than owning ETFs for almost all retail investors who are non-corrupt. Studies have looked at this and shown that regular investors in single stocks consistently underperform. So there's no real financial reason (in expectation terms) to do so unless they have corrupt intent. Of course someone that just got rich off NIO or GME probably differs but that doesn't speak to expected value which is all that matters for decision making.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    Many FAANG(-N) employees receive more in compensation in the form of shares of an individual company than they do in cash. I don’t want to force them to quit their job (or cut their comp by more than 50%) if they want to contribute in local politics. If this were broadly adopted, companies would be forced to switch to all-cash offers, to create long-term incentive plans that don’t use something the legislation defines as shares, or just be content to exclude politically active people from being employees. Some might be happy with that last outcome.
    - DFHippie 5y ago
      The original phrasing wasn't "contribute in local politics" but "take public office". Presumably if you take public office you give up your FAANG employment. I don't think anyone is saying you can't vote or petition government for the redress of grievances if you own individual stocks.
      - sokoloff 5y ago
        Unless it’s been edited in the meantime*, the text above is “precludes any publicly elected official or appointee at any level from directly owning individual stocks”. Many publicly elected or appointed roles are part-time (school board/committee, city council, etc.) Even MA state legislators make only $70.5K/yr and MA is one of the highest-paying states for that job. Many of them maintain another full-time job. https://ballotpedia.org/Comparison_of_state_legislative_salaries https://ballotpedia.org/Comparison_of_state_legislative_sala... * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28966192 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28966192 (edit window is 2 hours)
        csee 5y ago
        Yeah, you make a good point. I'd be pretty happy if they just implemented it for full time office holders only (senate, congress, judges) which aren't going to be having jobs on the side that pay equity.
  - indymike 5y ago
    I own my own company. That is a very specific stock and you are saying I can't own my business and run for office? Stocks aren't just for trading on the nyse.

by csee 5y ago

sokoloff 5y ago

Owning individual stocks (even temporarily or unvested) is a substantial fraction of compensation of many people that I want to be able to participate in local politics.

csee 5y ago
Owning individual stocks is the same expected value than owning ETFs for almost all retail investors who are non-corrupt. Studies have looked at this and shown that regular investors in single stocks consistently underperform. So there's no real financial reason (in expectation terms) to do so unless they have corrupt intent. Of course someone that just got rich off NIO or GME probably differs but that doesn't speak to expected value which is all that matters for decision making.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  Many FAANG(-N) employees receive more in compensation in the form of shares of an individual company than they do in cash. I don’t want to force them to quit their job (or cut their comp by more than 50%) if they want to contribute in local politics. If this were broadly adopted, companies would be forced to switch to all-cash offers, to create long-term incentive plans that don’t use something the legislation defines as shares, or just be content to exclude politically active people from being employees. Some might be happy with that last outcome.
  - DFHippie 5y ago
    The original phrasing wasn't "contribute in local politics" but "take public office". Presumably if you take public office you give up your FAANG employment. I don't think anyone is saying you can't vote or petition government for the redress of grievances if you own individual stocks.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      Unless it’s been edited in the meantime*, the text above is “precludes any publicly elected official or appointee at any level from directly owning individual stocks”. Many publicly elected or appointed roles are part-time (school board/committee, city council, etc.) Even MA state legislators make only $70.5K/yr and MA is one of the highest-paying states for that job. Many of them maintain another full-time job. https://ballotpedia.org/Comparison_of_state_legislative_salaries https://ballotpedia.org/Comparison_of_state_legislative_sala... * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28966192 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28966192 (edit window is 2 hours)
      - csee 5y ago
        Yeah, you make a good point. I'd be pretty happy if they just implemented it for full time office holders only (senate, congress, judges) which aren't going to be having jobs on the side that pay equity.
- indymike 5y ago
  I own my own company. That is a very specific stock and you are saying I can't own my business and run for office? Stocks aren't just for trading on the nyse.