5 ms·

I might agree with the author's thesis that tax code changes are the cause of the "tech job meltdown" BUT they don't provide any evidence for their claims in th

I might agree with the author's thesis that tax code changes are the cause of the "tech job meltdown" BUT they don't provide any evidence for their claims in the article :/ This makes it punditry, not a serious economic discussion. When I see discussion of complex economic problems (e.g. housing...) that are probably complex and multifactorial, authors often want to claim they are monocausal. It's usually a bad sign if there are no charts, graphs, numbers or quotes from people (in a position to know the truth, e.g. execs setting hiring policy) to back up their claims.

PeelingLayers 1y ago
It’s pretty obvious if you do your own company’s taxes. The old 174 allowed all software engineering work to be deducted on year on - you put in effort you get tax offsets for future profits. If that effort fails you can get acquired and the value of your salary work becomes someone else’s valuable tax offset. Bigger picture it make VC returns a LOT BETTER, which makes startups more viable with more funding, which makes good outcomes more likely - jobs, public companies that grow retirement of Americans, etc. For public companies it’s also really valuable - Meta can reduce its massive taxable profit by hiring all potential startup founders who would otherwise become competitors and keep them on the books with non-competes in exchange for slowly vesting equity. By the time your equity vests you are in your thirties and in child-making mindsets and startups are less tempting. When 174 expired Meta became very very different financially with all that expensive labour they couldn’t write off anymore and they laid off huge swaths of it. Because of the high interest rates, those potential competitors would struggle to raise money anyway.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

5 ms·

I might agree with the author's thesis that tax code changes are the cause of the "tech job meltdown" BUT they don't provide any evidence for their claims in th

by xyzzy123 1y ago

PeelingLayers 1y ago
It’s pretty obvious if you do your own company’s taxes. The old 174 allowed all software engineering work to be deducted on year on - you put in effort you get tax offsets for future profits. If that effort fails you can get acquired and the value of your salary work becomes someone else’s valuable tax offset. Bigger picture it make VC returns a LOT BETTER, which makes startups more viable with more funding, which makes good outcomes more likely - jobs, public companies that grow retirement of Americans, etc. For public companies it’s also really valuable - Meta can reduce its massive taxable profit by hiring all potential startup founders who would otherwise become competitors and keep them on the books with non-competes in exchange for slowly vesting equity. By the time your equity vests you are in your thirties and in child-making mindsets and startups are less tempting. When 174 expired Meta became very very different financially with all that expensive labour they couldn’t write off anymore and they laid off huge swaths of it. Because of the high interest rates, those potential competitors would struggle to raise money anyway.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]