4 ms·

> The problem with this article is that one does not need capital to start a tech company Yes, one does. One needs tech skills. Those are capital. (You agree w

by pdonis 4y ago

> The problem with this article is that one does not need capital to start a tech company Yes, one does. One needs tech skills. Those are capital. (You agree with this since you say tech workers get more valuable with age and experience.) They're just not capital in the form of a large pot of cash that can be used to throw money at problems.

ameister14 4y ago
Skills are not capital assets.
- pdonis 4y ago
  Yes, they are. The people who own and run Google and Facebook and Amazon didn't magically get "capital" from nowhere. They used their skills, and turned those skills into huge amounts of money. In other words, they understood what capital they owned, and acted to maximize their return on that capital. If you insist on refusing to view your own skills as capital, you're just giving up the chance to maximize (or at least improve) your return on that capital.
  - dudzik 4y ago
    Following that, capital is potential energy. Skills are the ability to meet spec quicker than someone who has to learn as they go. Sounds like potential energy to me. Since capital acts like potential energy, it follows that skills are capital.
  - cratermoon 4y ago
    If I invest $100 dollars in very safe investments today, what will it be worth in 50 years? Now, invest in your skills for 50 years, what's that going to be worth?
  - ameister14 4y ago
    I get what you're saying, you're using the 'human capital' social science-y definition. I don't really get why you're using that definition, though. Was the person you responded to not clear as to what he meant by capital, so you misunderstood and thought it was human capital? Or did you just want to derail into a semantic discussion?
- infamouscow 4y ago
  Okay, so what are skills if not capital assets?
  - SkyPuncher 4y ago
    Knowledge.
    - etothepii 4y ago
      And knowledge is power, comrades!
carlosjobim 4y ago
Skills are not capital in the communist vocabulary. Skills have an unlimited supply that can not be limited. If you want to mind-bend people into believing skills are capital, then all the workers in the world are bona-fide capitalists, since they are using their skills to get paid.
- pdonis 4y ago
  > Skills are not capital in the communist vocabulary. I have no interest in the communist vocabulary. Communism killed more than a hundred million people in the 20th century. I would hope we have figured out by now that communism doesn't work. > all the workers in the world are bona-fide capitalists, since they are using their skills to get paid. In the sense that most of their pay is return on capital, not "labor", yes, that is exactly right. However, the extent to which workers realize this, and act accordingly, in order to maximize the return on the capital they own (their skills), varies extremely widely.
  - malermeister 4y ago
    > Communism killed more than a hundred million people in the 20th century. I would hope we have figured out by now that communism doesn't work. So did Capitalism [0]. Now what? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Livre_noir_du_capitalisme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Livre_noir_du_capitalisme
    - carlosjobim 4y ago
      Communism and capitalism are allies, and frankly two sides of the same coin. Marx repeatedly makes it clear in his communistic manifesto, that a society first needs to become capitalist in order to break down traditions and family, before it is ready for a communist revolution. He states that communists should side with capitalists against traditional society, and then get rid off the capitalists after that. Smart capitalist politicians switch coats and become loyal party functionaries when that happens, corporate leaders keep their nice jobs and report to the party instead of to the shareholders. Bankers remain untouchable in both systems. Just the fact that people think the world is left/right, socialist/capitalist proves that these two allied ideologies have been extremely successful in the last century.
jojobas 4y ago
If that's the way to look at it, there is no proletariat in software engineering, just different scale bourgeoisie dealing with each other, and it sort of checks out. There is still bargaining and possible bargaining power disbalance, but software engineering supply and demand are such that rates only went up for many years.

by pdonis 4y ago

ameister14 4y ago

Skills are not capital assets.

pdonis 4y ago
Yes, they are. The people who own and run Google and Facebook and Amazon didn't magically get "capital" from nowhere. They used their skills, and turned those skills into huge amounts of money. In other words, they understood what capital they owned, and acted to maximize their return on that capital. If you insist on refusing to view your own skills as capital, you're just giving up the chance to maximize (or at least improve) your return on that capital.
- dudzik 4y ago
  Following that, capital is potential energy. Skills are the ability to meet spec quicker than someone who has to learn as they go. Sounds like potential energy to me. Since capital acts like potential energy, it follows that skills are capital.
- cratermoon 4y ago
  If I invest $100 dollars in very safe investments today, what will it be worth in 50 years? Now, invest in your skills for 50 years, what's that going to be worth?
- ameister14 4y ago
  I get what you're saying, you're using the 'human capital' social science-y definition. I don't really get why you're using that definition, though. Was the person you responded to not clear as to what he meant by capital, so you misunderstood and thought it was human capital? Or did you just want to derail into a semantic discussion?
infamouscow 4y ago
Okay, so what are skills if not capital assets?
- SkyPuncher 4y ago
  Knowledge.
  - etothepii 4y ago
    And knowledge is power, comrades!

carlosjobim 4y ago

Skills are not capital in the communist vocabulary. Skills have an unlimited supply that can not be limited. If you want to mind-bend people into believing skills are capital, then all the workers in the world are bona-fide capitalists, since they are using their skills to get paid.

pdonis 4y ago
> Skills are not capital in the communist vocabulary. I have no interest in the communist vocabulary. Communism killed more than a hundred million people in the 20th century. I would hope we have figured out by now that communism doesn't work. > all the workers in the world are bona-fide capitalists, since they are using their skills to get paid. In the sense that most of their pay is return on capital, not "labor", yes, that is exactly right. However, the extent to which workers realize this, and act accordingly, in order to maximize the return on the capital they own (their skills), varies extremely widely.
- malermeister 4y ago
  > Communism killed more than a hundred million people in the 20th century. I would hope we have figured out by now that communism doesn't work. So did Capitalism [0]. Now what? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Livre_noir_du_capitalisme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Livre_noir_du_capitalisme
  - carlosjobim 4y ago
    Communism and capitalism are allies, and frankly two sides of the same coin. Marx repeatedly makes it clear in his communistic manifesto, that a society first needs to become capitalist in order to break down traditions and family, before it is ready for a communist revolution. He states that communists should side with capitalists against traditional society, and then get rid off the capitalists after that. Smart capitalist politicians switch coats and become loyal party functionaries when that happens, corporate leaders keep their nice jobs and report to the party instead of to the shareholders. Bankers remain untouchable in both systems. Just the fact that people think the world is left/right, socialist/capitalist proves that these two allied ideologies have been extremely successful in the last century.

jojobas 4y ago

If that's the way to look at it, there is no proletariat in software engineering, just different scale bourgeoisie dealing with each other, and it sort of checks out. There is still bargaining and possible bargaining power disbalance, but software engineering supply and demand are such that rates only went up for many years.