5 ms·

> This is what I will never understand about most established tech people, they see all the widespread misery and poverty in SV and they still have the capacity

> This is what I will never understand about most established tech people, they see all the widespread misery and poverty in SV and they still have the capacity to feel sorry for themselves for not making X times more than 'that other guy. I don't understand this opinion. Why are the two feelings in conflict? I can be concerned for the people around me AND be concerned that I'm making less than X times more than the average. I really don't think there's anything good about equality if it means a programmer is making the same as the unqualified people - to me that signals a completely broken world that can't function. This kind of equality has been tried and failed spectacularly, and I live in a place that still feels the catastrophe today, 30 years post-facto, and it will be felt for the next 30 years at least, too. Overall, equality seems to me to be a misguided goal. We want people to have comfortable, healthy lives - I don't see how that relates to financial equality at all. Life needs to get cheaper so even the poor people can afford it - making everyone an equal millionaire will never work, that would just cause the prices to rise so much nobody could afford it and the meme of "equal misery" would become a reality once again. Let's talk about financial equality again once machines can do all the work.

nicoburns 4y ago
> Why are the two feelings in conflict? I can be concerned for the people around me AND be concerned that I'm making less than X times more than the average. Because as a tech worker your salary is likely already well above the level that it would need to fall in order for us to achieve meaningful level of wealth equality (not complete equality, but equal-ish) > making everyone an equal millionaire will never work Yes, exactly. But could work is having a scale of something like lower middle class to upper middle class incomes and getting rid of millionaires entirely (or making them as rare as billionaires are today). If we want to bring people out of poverty that money has to come from somewhere, and if you're making 6 figures some of it probably needs to come from you.
- emteycz 4y ago
  > Because as a tech worker your salary is likely already well above the level that it would need to fall in order for us to achieve meaningful level of wealth equality (not complete equality, but equal-ish) Why would you want that??? I think it's awesome the common Joe can learn programming on the internet and earn huge bucks. Why cancel that of all things? And then, I don't think your suggestion for equality would work. If my work was significantly taxed above $100K, I'd stop earning more at that point because work is very stressful to me and I'm not going to do it if I don't get the benefit of it; and I'd most definitely not go into any sort of risk (like starting a startup) in that world. If I can't even bang on a keyboard without someone feeling entitled to get the majority of my product, well then I'm not doing it, sorry. Everybody would lose - I'd pay much less taxes overall, and innovation from my side would grind to halt. (now I earn slightly less than $100k, but also live and work in Europe).
  - nicoburns 4y ago
    > If my work was significantly taxed above $100K, I'd stop earning more at that point because work is very stressful to me and I'm not going to do it if I don't get the benefit (now I earn slightly less than $100k, but also live and work in Europe). Everybody would lose - I'd pay less taxes overall. Perfect. You get a less stressful life. And you working less creates job opportunities for others. Other people win just by you (and other high earners) earning less. They don't have to earn more. Their money is worth more if there is less total money in circulation.
    - emteycz 4y ago
      No, I don't get a less stressful life, I'd get a much more stressful one. One, maybe two years I earn a lot, and then 2-5 years next to nothing. I must plan my life according to the needs of my mental health, not fiscal calendars of some social engineers who can't understand that one size doesn't fit all and can seriously hurt some people (yeah, even those who earn a lot some years are still just humans, and sometimes sleep on the street another year too). And it's a life where I am forbidden to do useful things that others want me to do and I am willing and able (which is not always, or often) - just because someone said "you did enough in this arbitrary period of time, give us your money or don't do it at all". Don't even start about me owing the society, because in my view the society owes me a lot for the pain it caused me, gave me nothing of value, and tries very hard to keep me from obtaining the little I have. And the bill keeps growing. The idea that this should not only prevail but continue to worsen gives me chills. Sorry - nothing personal, but I really, truly hate every bit of your idea of the world. From the beginning where people "should earn less so we are equal" to the end where it's "perfect that engineers work less" and the bit where you just assume I'd lead a less stressful life, even though you know nothing about me - typical of people of your opinions.
      - nicoburns 4y ago
        > And it's a life where I am forbidden to do useful things that others want me to do and I am willing and able (which is not always, or often) - just because someone said "you did enough in this arbitrary period of time, give us your money or don't do it at all". No you're not. You're free to do whatever you like. You just won't receive as much money in return as you would otherwise have done. > From the beginning where people "should earn less so we are equal" to the end where it's "perfect that engineers work less" To be clear, to the extent that there is a difference, I think that people with high earnings should be taxed more not that their nominal income should be lowered or restricted. And I think that it would be good if people had the freedom to choose to work less while still earning enough to comfortably live on. If you want to continue working as much as you currently do then all power to you. It was you who said further up the thread that would choose to work less.
- wing-_-nuts 4y ago
  I believe in equality of opportunity, not outcome. So, I'm absolutely fine with paying higher taxes if that money gets ear-marked for single payer healthcare, education, infrastructure, etc. See the nordics for an example. I don't believe doing that would require making millionaires as rare as billionaires are today. The nordic countries have plenty of millionaires and billionaires, yet everyone has most of their basic needs taken care of and most everyone has the opportunity to make something of themselves.
  - nicoburns 4y ago
    Something I suspect we both believe in is that allocation of resources ought to be roughly proportional to value provided. Where I suspect we differ is that I don’t believe that market value of services is an especially accurate measure of true value provided. And in particular I think it would be pretty much impossible for someone to provide enough value to society (relative to the average person with a normal job - many of which IMO provide huge value to society for little compensation) to warrant billionaire level wealth. I therefore think we ought to correct this discrepancy.

nicoburns 4y ago

> Why are the two feelings in conflict? I can be concerned for the people around me AND be concerned that I'm making less than X times more than the average. Because as a tech worker your salary is likely already well above the level that it would need to fall in order for us to achieve meaningful level of wealth equality (not complete equality, but equal-ish) > making everyone an equal millionaire will never work Yes, exactly. But could work is having a scale of something like lower middle class to upper middle class incomes and getting rid of millionaires entirely (or making them as rare as billionaires are today). If we want to bring people out of poverty that money has to come from somewhere, and if you're making 6 figures some of it probably needs to come from you.

emteycz 4y ago
> Because as a tech worker your salary is likely already well above the level that it would need to fall in order for us to achieve meaningful level of wealth equality (not complete equality, but equal-ish) Why would you want that??? I think it's awesome the common Joe can learn programming on the internet and earn huge bucks. Why cancel that of all things? And then, I don't think your suggestion for equality would work. If my work was significantly taxed above $100K, I'd stop earning more at that point because work is very stressful to me and I'm not going to do it if I don't get the benefit of it; and I'd most definitely not go into any sort of risk (like starting a startup) in that world. If I can't even bang on a keyboard without someone feeling entitled to get the majority of my product, well then I'm not doing it, sorry. Everybody would lose - I'd pay much less taxes overall, and innovation from my side would grind to halt. (now I earn slightly less than $100k, but also live and work in Europe).
- nicoburns 4y ago
  > If my work was significantly taxed above $100K, I'd stop earning more at that point because work is very stressful to me and I'm not going to do it if I don't get the benefit (now I earn slightly less than $100k, but also live and work in Europe). Everybody would lose - I'd pay less taxes overall. Perfect. You get a less stressful life. And you working less creates job opportunities for others. Other people win just by you (and other high earners) earning less. They don't have to earn more. Their money is worth more if there is less total money in circulation.
  - emteycz 4y ago
    No, I don't get a less stressful life, I'd get a much more stressful one. One, maybe two years I earn a lot, and then 2-5 years next to nothing. I must plan my life according to the needs of my mental health, not fiscal calendars of some social engineers who can't understand that one size doesn't fit all and can seriously hurt some people (yeah, even those who earn a lot some years are still just humans, and sometimes sleep on the street another year too). And it's a life where I am forbidden to do useful things that others want me to do and I am willing and able (which is not always, or often) - just because someone said "you did enough in this arbitrary period of time, give us your money or don't do it at all". Don't even start about me owing the society, because in my view the society owes me a lot for the pain it caused me, gave me nothing of value, and tries very hard to keep me from obtaining the little I have. And the bill keeps growing. The idea that this should not only prevail but continue to worsen gives me chills. Sorry - nothing personal, but I really, truly hate every bit of your idea of the world. From the beginning where people "should earn less so we are equal" to the end where it's "perfect that engineers work less" and the bit where you just assume I'd lead a less stressful life, even though you know nothing about me - typical of people of your opinions.
    - nicoburns 4y ago
      > And it's a life where I am forbidden to do useful things that others want me to do and I am willing and able (which is not always, or often) - just because someone said "you did enough in this arbitrary period of time, give us your money or don't do it at all". No you're not. You're free to do whatever you like. You just won't receive as much money in return as you would otherwise have done. > From the beginning where people "should earn less so we are equal" to the end where it's "perfect that engineers work less" To be clear, to the extent that there is a difference, I think that people with high earnings should be taxed more not that their nominal income should be lowered or restricted. And I think that it would be good if people had the freedom to choose to work less while still earning enough to comfortably live on. If you want to continue working as much as you currently do then all power to you. It was you who said further up the thread that would choose to work less.
wing-_-nuts 4y ago
I believe in equality of opportunity, not outcome. So, I'm absolutely fine with paying higher taxes if that money gets ear-marked for single payer healthcare, education, infrastructure, etc. See the nordics for an example. I don't believe doing that would require making millionaires as rare as billionaires are today. The nordic countries have plenty of millionaires and billionaires, yet everyone has most of their basic needs taken care of and most everyone has the opportunity to make something of themselves.
- nicoburns 4y ago
  Something I suspect we both believe in is that allocation of resources ought to be roughly proportional to value provided. Where I suspect we differ is that I don’t believe that market value of services is an especially accurate measure of true value provided. And in particular I think it would be pretty much impossible for someone to provide enough value to society (relative to the average person with a normal job - many of which IMO provide huge value to society for little compensation) to warrant billionaire level wealth. I therefore think we ought to correct this discrepancy.