I love how this is always framed as a "pipeline and talent" problem issue (its not), when it's really a "pipeline and talent at salaries I want to pay" issue.
At least you own it, rather than making up an excuse like "talent shortage" or "pipeline" issue to try to conceal the fact that at the end of the day you're just trying to save a buck.
Every economic decisions has that "at the price I want" caveat at the end of it?
There's no housing shortage, just a shortage of house at the right place and price. Different places have the right price, the right places don't have the right prices.
There's no job shortage, just a shortage of jobs that pay what I want and am qualified for.
Shortages happen in controlled economies, capitalism just adjusts prices.
I wish guys like you could just be honest and admit its really just about trying to save on labor costs rather than trying to frame this issue like there's some massive lack of skilled domestic engineering talent here.
You can't write a performant Linux runtime agent such as what Wiz did without knowing eBPF, which requires also understanding Linux internals, which requires an OS background.
Why should I spend $150k training someone who has no experience from scratch for 1 year? A lot of table stakes curricula has been made optional.
It's not talent though, why are we acting like it takes critical knowledge to write java spring endpoints or react components? Very few dev jobs require critical knowledge, even then that can mostly be learned on the job.
So yeah it seems like these companies that rely on massive corporate welfare + the backing of the US government don't want to pony up and pay their fair share.
Why should the government provide utilities to you or public education or firefighters or a legal system for you? What are you doing to make your end of the societal bargain copasetic?
You come across as greedy, people know you're insanely greedy. Why do you continue to be greedy and not help the community? The community is literally on the cusp of inflicting a massive amount of damage and let's not act like this administration won't start going after H1B workers once it becomes marketed as taking well paying jobs away from Americans who are struggling to pay their bills. You can even play it to garner more Congressional support by telling big tech to start relocating jobs into red/competitive districts or they will start taking revoking their H1B workers visas.
It's a powder keg situation and you want to shovel more gun powder around the keg rather than deescalate.
> It's not talent though, why are we acting like it takes critical knowledge to write java spring endpoints or react components?
Because typically that's not what you are hiring, even if effectively that's what you will have the engineer doing often.
I was hired for my problem solving skills. For being able to design an application end-to-end. For being able to extend a messy existing system in ways that are sensible. For being able to analyze issues and come up with ways to address them. For coming up with answers for legacy issues. Those among many other things.
Anyone out of a boot camp can write a Java endpoint using Spring. If you think that's what the company is hiring, you are sorely mistaken.
I say this as someone that was an interviewer in past jobs, including FAANG.
Right. Demand is fairly rigid from companies who need the labor. But they, as for-profit entities, want to maximize shareholder value, so instead of paying market rate for labor when the market rate is high, companies attempt to decrease the market rate by increasing labor supply through a variety of means - lobbying for modern indentured servitude (H1b's), shipping jobs overseas, etc.
This stands in direct contrast to the stated arguments they use to justify such moves, like "there isn't sufficient talent inside the US". There is sufficient talent inside the US, it just comes with a price tag they don't like.
Can confirm those targeted by H1B visas, etc don't think like that at all. I was in the US for a while on a F1 visa, which allowed me to work for a couple years, and I was super grateful for the opportunity. Had a couple positions with wages I heard some ranting was "too low", while I found it very livable and was even able to save a significant amount. I can imagine it being very similar for others who've come from places where earnings really are a pittance for many.
That description is more about the power dynamics at play. H1b workers are often expected to work longer hours, and to do so with lower pay than American citizens, and not even think of complaining about it. In the US visa system, if an H1b worker loses their job, they have 90 days to get a new job (next to impossible when visa sponsorship is required) or else they lose legal residency rights and must either self-deport or be in violation of immigration law (which is a great way to screw yourself over on future opportunities). The resulting dynamic is one where both the h1b employer and the h1b employee know that the employer can basically ruin the employee's life whenever they want, for any cause (including no cause), at the drop of a hat. This shapes the working relationship in negative, coercive ways. That coercive aspect is the basis for describing it as "modern indentured servitude".
Yes, why would you. As in, the question doesn’t make sense. A new grad will command a much lower salary than 150k today. Bet many would take 50k for a chance to train in this market.
Our best programmer was a surfer kid who started programming at 15 on his own.
Software companies invented whiteboard hiring questions in order to determine which random average person could be trained to be a good developer. It's wild to see how dogmatic you all have become today.
It fell, like much of the post COVID world. But somehow, I don't think that 600m tax opportunity cost contributed to 112 billion dollar drop in GDP. And then after that it basically stayed flat (rose by 1 billion, or.2% rise)
So, not too convinced this is a net loss for society. Studies in New York (pre Mamdmi) show that more people will come in than leave if the area is desired enough.
I didn’t say the tax gap caused the drop in GDP. I did say the capital flight caused the tax to wildly underperform revenue estimates, which is objectively true.
I love how this goes from “there’s no evidence wealthy move” to, when presented with evidence wealthy move, “well, ok, I’m not convinced this is a net loss for society”
Everyone loves deciding what their "fair share" of other people's net worth (not even income!) is.
Sorry, but the state just confiscating 5% of someone's net worth (unrealized or not) is absolute madness, and rightfully opens up questions about slippery slope, how "temporary" they claim this to be, and so on.
It's not surprising they are leaving the state or using their resources to try to stop it.
Your statement is ignoring the systematic growing inequality in the US between the ultra wealthy and everyone else. And the use of those funds to influence politics (because of Citizens United, etc) to create polices that benefit themselves - it is for the ultra wealthy a virtuous circle:
You could confiscate 100% of the wealth of every billionaire in this country and it wouldn’t fund the government for an entire year. It is and always will be a government spending issue, the government can’t help itself but to just steal more from the taxpayers to support their bloat.
You are conflating the tax revenue from a wealth tax with "funding the government for a year" which is precisely a balance vs cash flow mistake like you rightfully pointed out to someone else in the thread.
So given the government will still collect taxes for every foreseeable year, I ask you, what impact would it have if we used it not to fund the government but to pay down some of the debt?
Confiscating all of the assets of the nation’s billionaires wealth would yield 6-8T, depending on what kind creative accounting is done in anticipation of a wealth tax.
So yeah it would help reduce the debt slightly but doesn’t address the bigger culprit - spending and government inefficiency and bloat
>You could confiscate 100% of the wealth of every billionaire in this country and it wouldn’t fund the government for an entire year.
1. I see that being 14 trillion. That would in fact fund the government for a year. even for 2 years.
2. taxes aren't about achieving perfect equality. But it's in part to incentivize people to not hoard wealth and spend it in the company. Few of the busnesses in the 50's/60's paid close to the tax brackets they had back then (Which would give modern billionaires a heart attack, despite that being "the times to return to).
Except is not 14 trillion (in the US) It is closer to 8 trillion.
Even if it WAS 14 trillion, the fact that such an insane measure wouldn’t even fully fund the entire government for two years shows you can’t just confiscate your way out of things. It is spending.
I mean when you just make up a number, you should expect to be called out for it, lol.
And I did engage with the real point. Even if it WAS 14 trillion dollars, that wouldn't fund the government for 2 years. And then what? Why is the solution for government bloat and inefficiency always just taking more?
You did not and still are not. This isnt about making billionaires cover the entire country's budget. Its about making sure power doesn't consolidate in any one person.
Do I really need to repost the other 80% of my comment (the entire 2.point?) Which part of "high corporate taxes mean business owners invest in business" needs clarification? Are we suggesting that the tax codes in which the baby boomers boomed under did not in fact make America Great?
You’re discussing raising corporate or individual income tax rates.
I’m discussing a proposed broad wealth tax on unrealized gains and assets.
The tax rates of the 50s were high, but were filled with loopholes and deductions in that the effective tax rate that was actually paid was much lower.
There are arguments to be made how much those policies contributed to the boom of that decade, but those are separate to arguments about the practical, legal, or efficiency concerns with just imposing a 5% levy across all assets and net worth
>but were filled with loopholes and deductions in that the effective tax rate that was actually paid was much lower.
Yes, thanks for reiterating my main point.
Now if we use that same mindset and apply it to a wealth tax...
Hence my main point. Taxes aren't all about extraction of money, they also help to nudge people to do things they normally wouldn't do. So nudging them to actually help the area they are in is really powerful.
Or they can leave. If so: good. Make room for those who do want to innovate and not extract money from the people (and more beach space).
Not all billionaires are "job creators", especially given the actions taken the last few years. That's why some of the legitimate "millionaire flights" that do happen don't necessarily impact the way that's predicted on paper.
If they leave (and some already have) they take their tax base with them. Not just for this one time levy, but for future tax years too.
Then where will the state go to make up the revenue shortfall? Either raising taxes on other groups or cutting services.
I’m finished discussing this matter, let’s revisit this if and when this actually gets passed so we can see how much revenue was actually generated (or if it even survived legal challenges)
I do agree it is a spending issue, for far too long corporate welfare has flourished in America. None of these rich people would exist with out the federal teat they suckle from, truly pathetic. Remove their bloat, take their money, and fund programs that will enable REAL economic value like medicare for all, universal childcare, free school lunches, public jobs programs, and universal education.
And where will we get the money to fund this fantasy land in 8 months after the government runs out of money and we’ve already stolen all the billionaires assets?
Should we move on to anyone with a net worth over $1M and start stealing their assets too?
Probably the same way that the republicans are able to generate funds out of thin air to pay for tax cuts. If MMT is good enough for them, it's good enough for everything else.
> And where will we get the money to fund this fantasy land ...
What are you talking about? Current administration is doing exactly that. Cutting taxes for the wealthy and adding all those loses to national debt at record level increments. No fiscal responsibility at all.
Total fantasy and essentially poor and middle-class funds the rich through their taxes (and government money printer), not to mention how mega companies like Walmart constantly underpays workers that those workers then need to survive on government subsidies, yet another funding for the rich.
This is happening with every USA government (AFAIK especially/only republican ones) since Reagan.
EDIT: also as sibling comment said - poor people spend money instantly, returning it back to economy. America was already taxing wealthy through the teeth years ago - that helped fund incredible amounts of infrastructure and let built strongest middle class (probably in history) for decades. Now all that wealth is just accumulating in someones back accounts. Trickling any day now...
> America was already taxing wealthy through the teeth years ago
Except they weren’t. Those lovely 90% tax rates from the 1950s everyone on Reddit loves to bring up weren’t really paid by anyone. The effective tax rate paid after the loopholes and deductions was much lower, closer to 40%
>but the state just confiscating 5% of someone's net worth (unrealized or not) is absolute madness
why? The federal government is taking around 22% from me this year and I'm in a low bracket. If I had the money from my last full time job in tech it'd be 24%. You're saying billionaires shouldn't pay the state they reside in 5% more?
Tanentially, that's only one bracket despite it being triple the salary. gotta love that part time minimum wage work in CA still pushes me that close to my financial peaks.
The government is taking 22% of your INCOME. Not your entire net worth. This is vastly different.
HNW don’t have their net worth sitting in a pool of cash like Donald Duck as much as Reddit would like to believe. Its property, company stock, any unrealized gains in different equities, etc.
to have to go through the administrative burden of valuing all that, and then attempting to liquidate at some reasonable market value just to pay one time levy (allegedly lol) is insane, and will rightfully be challenged in court
> property, company stock, any unrealized gains in different equities, etc.
it is only “unrealized” when they have to pay taxes. but walk into a bank and ask for a loan (which is of course what they do) and all of a sudden that shit is all “realized” and here’s millions of dollars to ya…
it is not separate, it is exactly the same discussion. if you currently can use “unrealized” shit to borrow against than it is perfectly fair for you to pay the taxes on that shit. it is absolutely not a “separate discussion”
I support some sort of disincentive to prevent HNW individuals from borrowing against assets for income.
I do not support wealth taxes or taxing unrealized gains (unless you get rebates for unrealized losses lol)
There SHOULD be some mechanism (idk what) to close the loophole of HNW individuals borrowing against an asset you have not sold to minimize actual income, but that doesn't mean its right, effective, or even legal to just mass tax all unrealized gains, just because this specific loophole exists currently.
it is not a separate discussion because - at present - there is no such thing as “unrealized gains”
- they are all realized and have always been. now we just want to tax it.
I literally said there should be some sort of final penalty or taxable event associated with borrowing against illiquid assets and unrealized gains for very HNW individuals.
>to have to go through the administrative burden of valuing all that, and then attempting to liquidate at some reasonable market value just to pay one time levy (allegedly lol) is insane, and will rightfully be challenged in court
Cool, let's do it. We know the IRS, especially when auditing the rich tend to be one of the highest value employees of government they will sue no matter how cut and clear the tax code is anyway.
Its really weird we're on HN and we're using an excuse of "but it's hard, so let's not do it". I didn't choose tech because it was easy. Why should the government we fund be just as defeatist?
Of course its easy for you to say - its simple to just point the finger and claim you're entitled to your "fair share" of someone else's property simply because they have more than you. And my main point isn't even that "its hard" (which it is), its that governments cannot simply just tax and confiscate their way to a utopia.
Fortunately for sanity and common sense, this proposal, if it even passes, will surely be challenged on Federal and State constitutional grounds.
>if it even passes, will surely be challenged on Federal and State constitutional grounds.
Will it be sanity if they lose and the tax is upheld?
I already said that they will file lawsuits no matter how they legislate, so nothing in my comment was actually addressed.
Insteas you're just trying to make me emphathize with a billionaire for some reason. Meanwhile, I'm almost 3 years out of my last W-2 job that I was laid off of because of these billionaires. My sympathy is gone. Tax the rich.
