> Accepting a below market salary and then doing a great job is a huge risk.
By doing bad quality work on purpose will not make you learn anything. Better idea is to leave your underpaid position, start your own startup or join another that has better salary and compensation.
It is about aligning risk preferences. Being "all-in" is not likely a good thing for a founder. The founder prefers to take less risk which results to mediocre exit for the investor. The investor would rather have bigger exit or nothing, and giving the founder some money is helping to aling the risk preferences a bit towards the same direction.
As for employees? They are typically not calling the shots about company direction. I don't see a reason why investors would care about employees.
> As for employees? They are typically not calling the shots about company direction.
They can be motivated or not, knowing that the founder made big bucks and they made nothing is bound to lower motivation. Thus the title of the article, founder's liquidity is a well guarded secret.
He should just have asked for all-cash transaction. I think it is fair. If they don't want to sell the company stock and buy the company with cash, or at least make an offer, then there is likelihood that there is some kind of fraud going on.
Easy to say in hindsight, but using stock to pay for a merger is common. Most companies are not carrying a big chunk of their value in cash (it’s not capital-efficient). Therefore buying anything sizable for cash will require the combined company to take on debt. So a stock-for-stock merger can result in a combined company that has a safer balance sheet. If the acquiree believes the merger is a good idea, they might consider owning stock in the merged entity to be a good thing. If nobody is offering them a competitive offer in cash, they don’t have much leverage to ask for it anyway. Even if you value the stock offer with some discount for risk, it can still be attractive.
It need not be a pure debt transaction, the combined company can sell stock to the public rather than the shareholders of the old company who may suddenly feel the need to liquidate.
Bitcoin has worked for me all right for 10+ years. What is exactly wrong with it? At times fees have been a bit higher, but overall I would see the protocol as "good enough". For smaller transactions I have been using Lightning Network and it seems to work all right. The fact that Bitcoin hasn't hard forked for whatever reasons is a positive feature, that outweighs the negatives.
You can consider for example Ethereum, which has hard forked numerous times and changed the monetary policy as well multiple times. It just feels quite centralized and controlled by Vitalik. Harder to trust that crap.
Vitalik is basically only a thought leader these days, he has taken many steps back (as you can read about on his blog). He doesn't "control" anything.
The guiding principle for the monetary policy of Ethereum has not changed: minimum viable issuance. Thanks to the economic efficiency of PoS + fee burn, it enabled what amounts to frontrunning every "halving" and having ~net zero issuance, it's simply good for holders.
If Bitcoin had a way to be secure without further issuance (huge can of worms, halvings are slowly ticking time bombs in the long-run, unless fees rise significantly), it'd be good for holders to fork and scrap it too. There'd be no need to pay billions for security through issuance.
Calling Ethereum centralized at this point is ridiculous. The fact that core devs from multiple client teams can manage to agree on and implement forks to keep developing the protocol (unlike Bitcoin) is a major accomplishment, not a failure.
It is possible, but absurd. Why more layers if layer 1 works fine just increasing the maximum block size? Bitcoin Cash did it and works flawlessly. Just try it.
> Bitcoin cash pays the price through centralisation
What centralization? If you are referring to the node implementations, it has several [0]: Bitcoin Node, Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin Verde,... Bitcoin BTC has basically one: Bitcoin Core [1]. If you mean mining, it's the same as BTC, same mining algorithm, same miners.
> It can still only manage 100 transactions/second
True for now, but it's way more than it needs right now now [2]. But don't worry, this month upgrades to ABLA [3], and will be able to scale to as many tx/s as needed.
The increased block size increases the amount of storage required to run a full node (and also the bandwidth required to sync nodes). Even at just 100 tx/sec, you need 14x the storage of a bitcoin node (so around 10TB vs 700GB for bitcoin). That puts it out of reach for many people to run and so making it more centralised.
To compete with a payment rails like Visa and Mastercard, you'd need to increase that to 10000+ tx/sec, making running a node complete unfeasible for most people to run.
There's simply no such thing as a decentralised blockchain network with unlimited block-size. At some point if you want to remain decentralised, you have to create layer 2+ networks that can handle the smaller, high-bandwidth transactions, and so you may as well commit to that model now and focus on making the base layer as robust as possible.
Ultimately for a money to attract the most value, it needs to optimise for the very largest transactions, and offer the most robustness (i.e. most decentralisation). This is precisely what bitcoin has done.
If you mean a full non-mining nodes (which only a few people really need, merchants, exchanges, ...), read points 7 and 8 of the whitepaper. For full mining nodes, you need expensive specialized hardware anyway.
Non-mining nodes are just observers that do nothing good to the network. Is like going to war with popcorn as a weapon. Mining nodes are the only ones than can include transactions to a block.
Yes full non-mining nodes. I understand about pruned nodes, but that is a bonus for both networks - it means people can run a node on their mobile phone for example. The nodes have the real power in the network - they're are the people’s vote on what bitcoin really is. You can mine what you like but if my node says it's not bitcoin, it's not bitcoin. And there's many more who think like me. This has already been proven in the block-size wars - both the consensus on block-size and proof of the power of nodes vs miners.
The HW to run bitcoin is extremely cheap - less than $100. All you need is an old laptop or Raspberry Pi with a 700GB of storage, and a ham radio/dial-up internet connection to another node.
Yes. It's network effect. Even if all of the miners simultaneously decided to go big block or some other controversial change that most people don't want, the majority of the population's nodes would then not accept the mined blocks. They'd see the rate of new blocks drop to 0, and people would instantly start mining on their PCs to get the block reward. Some of the miners would start to change their mind and start mining with ASICs for the easy block-reward and eventually the hash-rate would build back up again, with the previous miners or without them.
The non-mining nodes in fact can completely destroy the ASIC miners by upgrading to a new POW algorithm. Hopefully it will never come to that, but ultimately the people, with their non-mining nodes have the power, not the miners. The only way miners can successfully change bitcoin is if the vast majority of people agree with the change.
The comments to that article (especially the one from dooglus) make a decent rebuttal to the idea that full nodes are a "terrible idea".
If you're convinced a block chain can scale to 50k transactions / sec and also remain decentralised and offer enough privacy, then keep at it, but I'm afraid I'm unconvinced.
Even if it were theoretically possible, the solution would likely be so complex, or based on a long chain of "hopefully unlikely" events that I wouldn't have enough confidence in it to store large amounts of value.
The slowness and simplicity of the Bitcoin network is what gives it robustness, and if I'm storing large amounts of money, that's what I want even if it means I can't buy a cup of coffee on the same network.
> The slowness and simplicity of the Bitcoin network is what gives it robustness, and if I'm storing large amounts of money, that's what I want even if it means I can't buy a cup of coffee on the same network.
Then why not just use gold? It is slow, simple, and you can't use it to buy coffee.
Because it's not as liquid, it's not as easily verified, the supply doubles every 40 years, it's not as easily protected (compared to multi-sig bitcoin), I can't send it around the world in 10 minutes, and I can't take it across borders in my head. It doesn't form the basis for the entire world's future reserve asset and monetary unit, and the market is mature/saturated whereas bitcoin is completely misunderstood by almost everyone and so is wildly undervalued.
You are describing Bitcoin Cash too, with the difference that with BCH in that 10-minute window the transaction is irreversible (like the original Bitcoin), so a 0-conf tx. And extremely low fees, of course (also like the original Bitcoin).
Bitcoin transactions are also "irreversible" providing the fee paid is reasonable, but ultimately the clearing time for both networks is down to the likelihood of a 51% attack for which bitcoin is far more protected against due to the far larger amount of hash power. It's not comparable.
If I'm moving/storing $1 billion, do I care if the transaction costs $1 instead of $20? No - I care that I'm storing the money in the safest place to store value I can find.
If we look simply at network growth in economic terms, Bitcoin is only going to attract larger and larger sums of money. This halving epoch we now have institutional investors (ETFs) and once it has proven itself at that level, the next stage will be nations openly buying it.
So even if fees increase in fiat terms, so will the size of the transactions. Enough to take the market cap far, far beyond that of gold. Once bitcoin has grown to the point that its value has stabilised, there will be substantial demand for transacting in it directly and there will naturally be a lot more work invested into higher-level payment networks/solutions. Right now though, Gresham's law sees to it that most people are happier to hoard than spend and that's likely to be case until bitcoin is at least $10M/BTC
> I think it has worked well for a lot of people as an investment. Not so much as a replacement to normal money.
Replacing normal money altogether would anyway be an huge goal. Personally I believe, long-term Bitcoin is getting there. I've been using it for payments, now and then, for about 10 years. Mostly as an experiment, but sometimes it also is more convenient to pay with BTC. In general there has been slow, but increasing acceptance of BTC as a payment method. For some things it makes more sense than others. The biggest issue was the early misconception of it being good for microtransactions. I would say that it is more for macropayments.
Bitcoin was designed as an investment vehicle by its choice of capped supply.
Use as a currency would have vastly benefitted from a fixed block subsidy, which also would have avoided much of its current wealth concentration [1].
Use as currency is possible with Layer 2 systems like Lightning. The issues I believe are both technological, political and philosophical: apart from the ease of use (or lack thereof), people prefer the currency they need to pay taxes with, and will always prefer the depreciating one, until it stops having any useful value. See the arguments put forth by Saifedean Ammous in his book.
For me the main ledger is equivalent to inter-bank settlement payments. It is not for people to use directly, it is to settle the large amount between "market makers", so $10+ transaction fees are not a problem when the amounts transferred would be in the millions. These settlements are few and far between, they do not require immediate execution. In Bitcoin parlance, these market makers would be Lightning nodes, which I imagine in the long run would not be operated by your Average Joe.
Bitcoin (BTC) worked perfectly as currency in the beginning, until Blockstream took over the development team, and they decided to keep the temporary anti-spam 1MB block limit, making 0-confirmation transactions (instant payments) very risky by implementing return-by-fee (which make transactions reversible before getting confirmed), etc.
Miners mine whatever is most profitable for them, regardless of how good or bad is that cryptocurrency, and they switch between BTC, BCH or any other SHA256 (not Bitcoin Gold, which uses a different hash function) even many times in a given day.
Fixed block subsidy would have a risk of supply outpacing the demand. Then the price would drop structurally which could cause "run on bank" and wholesale abandonment.
Decreasing amount of bitcoin supply means that eventually the supply would fall below demand, which ensures rising price.
Every 4 years when supply and the demand reach equilibrium, the supply is halved which triggers new price rise and renewed interest. The entire crypto ecosystem follows.
Bitcoin halvings are THE reason crypto is a thing. Not just a curiosity for some techies.
We have maybe two cycles left ahead of us. Then crypto will become just digital gold randomly fluctuating with interest from the asset holders.
US is likely the only jurisdiction that can actually enforce it. Other countries can't just call US government to send them back if they suspect they owe some tax.
Ah that's why they're complaining about the student loans.
In The European countries I have been living in, the concept of personal bankcrupty doesn't exist in the same way, at least. People who get too much loans kind of just hang with them, after 15-20 years they are forgiven AFAIK.
Btw, my suggestion for the US would be to remove that special bankruptcy exception for new student loans.
That's because once you do that, the supply of new student loans would most likely dry up. Thus shutting off the money fountain for the education industry.
Your suggestion wouldn’t work because nearly all student loans (over 90%) are issued by the federal government, which does not (and for political reasons, never will) evaluate credit risk.
> nearly all student loans (over 90%) are issued by the federal government
Not claiming you are wrong, because I genuinely don’t know, but how does it gel with the fact that the federal student loans for undergrads cap out at the max of around $9.5-12k for independent students and $5.5-7.5k for dependent students per year[0]?
Given all the outrage I see online, where people claim paying upwards of $20-40k/yr for attendance, wouldn’t they need to supplement it with private loans?
I dont doubt that there are more federal loans out there than private ones (because it always makes sense to get the federal ones first, and only go for private ones later if needed, so pretty much everyone who has private loans also has federal ones). But what about in terms of the actual loan dollar amount?
https://www.usatoday.com/money/blueprint/student-loans/avera... (“As of the first quarter of 2023, student loan debt in the U.S. stands at a total of over $1.77 trillion. More than 92% of this is federal student loan debt while the remaining amount is owed on private student loans, according to Federal Student Aid (an office of the Department of Education).”).
That 92% figure is in terms of debt amount, not number of loans.
The limits you mention are per student. Parent PLUS loans are limited only by the school’s official cost of attendance: https://studentaid.gov/understand-aid/types/loans/plus/paren... (“The maximum PLUS loan amount you can borrow is the cost of attendance at the school your child will attend minus any other financial assistance your child receives. The cost of attendance is determined by the school.”). Schools are extremely aggressive about ensuring parents are on the hook for the loans so students can take out the maximum.
That’s a good point, thanks for bringing it up. It pretty much resolves the conundrum I was having in my original comment.
Small caveat (that ultimately doesn’t negate your point): PLUS loans have credit check requirements for determing eligibility[0] (with exceptions available in certain cases if you can satisfy additional requirements, like bringing an eligible cosigner who can pass the credit check).
An alternative is to tie the federal student loan program to a regulation in school cost. If the school exceeds some threshold, their students are no longer qualify for federally-backed loans. Granted, it creates administrative burden but it’s the only proposal I’ve heard that seems to address the root problem of tuition costs and almost unfettered access to collateral-free loans.
That's unlikely to be accepted for other reasons. Putting a limit means most will approach that limit, and those that exceed the limit will be even more unaffordable. Plus no one will agree on what the limit should be. Which makes them extremely unpopular (except for benefits to individuals which of course should have the lowest limit possible nationwide)
>Plus no one will agree on what the limit should be.
We do this with drug reimbursement costs and construction already and I’m pretty sure those for-profit companies would also disagree on what the limit should be. I also don’t think it needs to be a one-size-fits all threshold; it could be adjusted to COL and/or job prospects that are tied to graduate statistics. IMO that goes a long way to aligning the incentives of the student and the institution.
Yeah, I intentionally didn't say it wouldn't happen, just unlikely :)
Personally I think limits (and significantly higher grants to make student loans unnecessary for a basic post-secondary education) are needed. But I think it's worth recognizing that limits will make what's already a very divisive issue, even more divisive...
I think more thoughtful limits would be a good idea. I also think the reduction of aid money has been part of the problem. I just don't know where the money comes from to shore up that problem.
I have seen other pilot programs. I think it was Purdue who was considering "buying stock" in students, where the student would pay a portion of their income for a certain number of years in exchange for a scholarship.
We are to judge because we are the taxpayers who guarantee the vast majority of those loans. That’s the mail reason I said “collateral-free.” Most of those loans would not happen in a private market because teenagers, in general, do not have collateral to secure the loan, meaning they have little to lose by defaulting.
Their degree and future earning potential is supposed to be the collateral.
Unfortunately, the earning potential of a generic bachelor's degree seems to have mysteriously fallen at roughly the same time a flood of students were offered huge loans to achieve them. Maybe some day we'll be able to find the connection.
I don’t think that’s correct. You can’t put up “future earning potential” as collateral while simultaneously allowing for discharge of debt in bankruptcy. That results in an incentive to incur as much debt as possible and then declare bankruptcy shortly after graduation when the impact is negligible. That’s the whole reason why student loans aren’t generally dischargable in bankruptcy.
I agree that's the theory, I disagree that it actually is what would happen in practice. E.g., if the government stops guaranteeing the loans I seriously doubt banks will accept "future earning potential" as collateral. So I disagree that it's actually collateral (your initial claim). The real collateral is the govt promise to back up the loan.
So the question still stands: if the government no longer guarantees the loans, what is the proposed solution to prevent banks from no longer lending to students?
I’m not against that, but I do think just getting rid of federally backed loans previously causes more problems. (Ie it’s one of those simple cures that may ignore blowback) Do you think there is an opportunity gap to be closed? If so, how do you think that would work?
> (Ie it’s one of those simple cures that may ignore blowback)
I actually want exactly the 'blowback': I want student loan creation to fall off a clip.
> Do you think there is an opportunity gap to be closed?
What is an opportunity gap?
> If so, how do you think that would work?
I'm guessing here what you mean by opportunity gap. I think the cheapest way is to open the US labour market to virtually anyone on the globe. That would be good for the US economy, wouldn't cost the tax payer anything (in fact you would save on border enforcement), and the people with the least opportunities globally would benefit enormously.
If you only care about Americans, I would suggest to give poor people money, and let them decide what to do with it.
Eg whatever the cost to subsidise education (including subsidised student loans) right now, just pay it out to poor people. Than they can buy education, or whatever else they deem more necessary.
>whatever the cost to subsidise education (including subsidised student loans) right now
It sounds like you may not understand how the system works. It doesn’t cost the government anything, with the exception of the loan repayment pause surrounding COVID.
I know the simple solutions like “Just give away money” can be seductive, but IMO they generally don’t work well in complex and nuanced problems. People aren’t rational actors by and large, and it’s a mistake to assume they can be modeled as such in many cases.
I'm talking about real costs. The government doesn't lose money by guaranteeing loans (in fact they make money, which is a totally different — but reasonable —argument against the current setup). I assume you mean opportunity costs as in "what else could the govt fund" with that money; if that's your claim, it again belies a misunderstanding of what's going on. You seem to have created this false narrative in your head that doesn't reflect reality.
There is much research, especially in behavioral economics, that shows that more objective decisions can be made by creating systems that facilitate more rational decisions. So my current position is that we should set up systems/institutions to foster those better decisions rather than push everything down to the individual, given the complexities of modern life. So to directly answer your question, there's decades of research that shows individuals aren't great at making rational decisions at the individual level. It's also interesting that you simultaneously seem to claim the "state" should make decisions, but also that institutions don't know what's better than individuals. It doesn't make for a very cohesive take.
> I'm talking about real costs. The government doesn't lose money by guaranteeing loans (in fact they make money, which is a totally different — but reasonable —argument against the current setup).
The government guaranteeing arbitrary loans isn't free in economic terms. Just like eg increasing the length of patents from 20 years to 40 years ain't free, even though it won't show up as a cost on any government balance sheet.
So what do you think the non-monetary realized cost is? And that cost compare to the benefit of a more educated populace?
At least with your patent example, we can measure it in economic terms, since patents are a commercial protection. Once we start getting into wishy-washy measures, people can make just about any arbitrary point to fit their narrative.
I think that's a potential part, but to play devil's advocate: don't you think this may exacerbate the opportunity gap? I.e., those who are the best bets (in terms of not defaulting) are also those who come from well-off backgrounds?
Unless someone else (like parents) stand as guarantors, I think the greatest predictor for a default will be how competent the candidate is after finishing the education.
Also, instead of allowing a bankruptcy at any time, student loan down payment could be limited to max 25% of income after tax OR 10% of net worth, whichever is greater, with any balance after 30 years transferred to the college.
Objectives:
1) Reduce the incentive for colleges to offer education tracks that they KNOW (or should have known) will never lead to much beyond a minimum pay job.
2) Prevent unlucky or unsuccessful students to get stuck with an impossibly large loan that just keeps growing, absorbing all they earn or own.
3) Ensure that students still do feel some pain when this happens, but not so much that they lose all incentive to build themselves up. They still keep 75% of their income after tax AND they're guaranteed that the loan will end within 30 years.
4) Incentivize pricing of of the student loans in ways that reflect the risks involved. If students that study "lesbian dance theory" have to pay a 10% interest rate while Physics students pay only 5%, that's a pretty strong indication that the "credit score" for the former is pretty bad.
5) Also incentivize minimizing cost while maximize the useful learning for the college, to minimize the risk that they'll be stuck with too much of the debt.
If this leads to some (presumed worthy) students having fewer opportunities than they otherwise would have, it's still possible for the collages, government or others to provide stipends or other similar forms of support.
That's why we shouldn't subsidise education in the first place.
The net benefits of education accrue to more than 100% to the customer. And, people from well-off backgrounds can and do take more advantage of education.
We should just give poor people money, and let them decide for themselves how they want to spend it. If they want to spend it on (unsubsidised) education, that would be fine choice for them to make.
I do agree that when you subsidize something you get more of it. So there’s a case that in some instances like education, it’s a good thing. Most people probably agree that a more educated society is better than a less educated one (although I agree there’s still room for debate on what that education should entail). The issue with an open-ended handout is that you don’t know what you’ll be getting more of.
> So there’s a case that in some instances like education, it’s a good thing.
That's where we disagree, I guess.
I don't mind education in the sense of people learning something. That's harmless enough (but doesn't need special subsidies. Just give money to the needy, and let them decide whether they want to invest it in a library membership.)
What I'm against specifically is education in the sense of getting a certificate at the end. A degree etc.
That sort of education has negative externalities and should be highly taxed, not subsidised. It leads to an arms race of credentialism, and is a big reason why eg a high school graduate can't get a decent job these days.
(There are plenty of jobs that used to be done by high school dropouts, that haven't changed all that much. But now require a degree, if you want to be considered for an interview.)
I think we actually agree largely on the education piece, that’s why I gave the parenthetical. I don't get the impression you really think a more educated populace is worse, but we may disagree on how one gets educated. There are many routes to education, and I think it’s wrong to think all people need the same route. But I think you’re committing the same error by assuming the library route works for everybody.
I do also think over-credentialism is a problem, but that is largely up to the employer. All they have to do is start hiring people without credentials if they aren’t warranted and the problem is solved (for non regulated industries). But I wouldn’t go so far to say credentialism as a whole is worthless. I’m glad the food I buy is credentialed by the FDA, and the doctor I e see is credentialed as is the engineer who designed the bridge I drove across to get to work.
What I do see on HN is that the crowd generally biases towards libertarian autodidacts and that colors much of their worldview.
> I think we actually agree largely on the education piece, that’s why I gave the parenthetical. I don't get the impression you really think a more educated populace is worse, but we may disagree on how one gets educated. There are many routes to education, and I think it’s wrong to think all people need the same route. But I think you’re committing the same error by assuming the library route works for everybody.
The library was just an example. People can use their own money and time to pursue whatever route they wish. They can attend schools (and pay the fees), they can go to the library, they can read Wikipedia, they can do an apprenticeship, etc, whatever works for them.
> I do also think over-credentialism is a problem, but that is largely up to the employer. All they have to do is start hiring people without credentials if they aren’t warranted and the problem is solved (for non regulated industries).
Alas, no. Employers aren't stupid (and neither are workers). Employers are paying attention to the credentials because they signal useful qualities in the prospective employee. Mostly compliance and conformity.
For an individual worker and an individual company, the credential is a useful signal. Just like it's useful for an individual country to get some extra nukes.
But from an economy-wide perspective, it's just an arms race. (Similarly, there's no global benefit from every country getting some extra nukes each.)
> I’m glad the food I buy is credentialed by the FDA, and the doctor I e see is credentialed as is the engineer who designed the bridge I drove across to get to work.
I'm not an American, but I think the FDA is pretty much useless. (But that's mostly because it's a federal agency, and the relevant authorities should probably sit at the state level at the highest or even lower. With voluntary coordination between the different states. Very similar to how traffic signs and rules are regulated and coordinated.)
I think your response is overly cynical. As the Oscar Wilde quote goes, a cynic is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. The FDA is far from perfect, but I have much more confidence buying a drug regulated by then than some pills sold at the convenient store.
>Employers are paying attention to the credentials because they signal useful qualities in the prospective employee. Mostly compliance and conformity.
Again, I think this is overly cynical and lacking nuance. There is debate in the economics circles on how much a college credential is signal for culture fit and how much is signal fit skills. It’s far from settled, and almost certainly a mixture of the two.
I personally think employers use credentials because they are incentivized to be risk adverse. It’s easier to defend a binary credential than to accurately gauge skillset and cultural fit through a behavioral interview. HR is concerned more with reducing false positives than letting a good candidate slip through the cracks.
I also disagree with the coordination piece at large scale. When societies get big enough, we don’t have the individual bandwidth to manage every interaction so we rely on institutions to shoulder some of that burden. I suspect that’s why you see a convergence on societies setting up a “council of elders” (ie govt) when they get to a certain size. Most of the people who lean into the unnuanced libertarian ideal tend to also lean towards certain troubles managing social dynamics.
> I think your response is overly cynical. As the Oscar Wilde quote goes, a cynic is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. The FDA is far from perfect, but I have much more confidence buying a drug regulated by then than some pills sold at the convenient store.
I suggested that state level agencies can do that regulation. Why do you bring up the straw man of unregulated drugs?
Most countries are smaller than the US, and still manage to get safe drugs. In fact, many countries are even smaller than many US states. So it should be certainly possible for US states to regulate drugs. (Especially since they can cooperate, just like they do on traffic rules or the Uniform Commercial Code.)
I'm not sure why you want to paint my position here as some radical 'libertarian' fanatic? Even the Catholic Church likes subsidiarity, and it's (in theory) one of the guiding principles of the European Union. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity
> Again, I think this is overly cynical and lacking nuance. There is debate in the economics circles on how much a college credential is signal for culture fit and how much is signal fit skills. It’s far from settled, and almost certainly a mixture of the two.
Aren't you the cynical one? I am suggesting that most likely employers and employees ain't idiots and know what they are doing. And you suggest 'hold one, they probably are idiots'.
> I also disagree with the coordination piece at large scale. When societies get big enough, we don’t have the individual bandwidth to manage every interaction so we rely on institutions to shoulder some of that burden.
Sure, but that doesn't mean subsidising credentialism is the only way. We have examples from successful societies in other parts of the world and in other parts of history doing just fine with a lot less of that. So your argument from universal convergence doesn't fly, when there is no universal convergence in the first place.
Because it illustrates the problems of scale. Much of commerce is regulated at the federal level because crossing state lines makes the complexity of the problem much harder to manage. UCC is not a very good example; it has barely changed in half a century, in part because getting all states to update and agree becomes onerous. As an effect, the UCC largely boils down to a contract law policy of "shut up, pay me." That type of approach isn't great for handling nuanced problems.
>Most countries are smaller than the US, and still manage to get safe drugs.
You do understand much of this is predicated on the very institutions you are maligning. A vast and disproportionate amount of pharma R&D is done in, and regulated by, the U.S. Other countries generally use that information as a proxy for in-house regulation. Ever wonder how small countries manage to regulate their aircraft without much overhead? It's because they accept the US FAA certifications. They effectively outsource the oversight to the US.
>I am suggesting that most likely employers and employees ain't idiots
If you review my comments, I'm don't think you'll find me using the word "idiot." What you will find is that I claim individuals act irrationally and also struggle to manage information when the complexity of society gets high.
>Sure, but that doesn't mean subsidising credentialism is the only way.
If you read carefully, I have not been an advocate for subsidizing education per se. What I am saying is we need to be careful of the blowback of simple solutions. If the intent is to increase education, subsizing it is one way, but it obviously has unintended consequences. Simply removing subsidies does not necessary fix the problem without creating second order problems of its own. I'm saying we need to be cognizant of that, and asked for solutions that effectively manage those consequences. Generally, those simple fixes like "remove subsidies" or "just give people money" belie a lack of nuanced understanding and risk creating more problems than they solve. Most of your perspective seems to be built on an overly simple model of human behavior that tends to break down on complex situations.
Germany has Verbraucherinsolvenzverfahren. The individual's credit rating will be negatively affected for several years after the completion of the procedure. The insolvency proceedings are recorded in a public register, which can be accessed by anyone. The process typically lasts for six years, during which the individual must adhere to a strict budget and make payments to creditors. After completing the six-year period, the remaining debts are discharged, provided the individual has adhered to the terms of the insolvency plan.
Step 1 is außergerichtliches Schuldenbereinigungsverfahren where the debtor attempts to reach an out-of-court settlement with creditors. This stage usually lasts up to 6 months.
Then there is Eröffnung des Insolvenzverfahrens where if the out-of-court settlement fails, the debtor files for insolvency with the local court. The court appoints a trustee to manage the debtor's assets and liaise with creditors. This stage typically takes 1-2 months.
Next there is either Regelinsolvenzverfahren or vereinfachtes Insolvenzverfahren. In the latter if the debtor's assets are insufficient to cover the costs of the proceedings, the court may initiate a simplified insolvency process. The debtor proposes an insolvency plan to the creditors, which includes a 6-year repayment period. If the plan is accepted, the court approves it, and the debtor begins making payments.
In the former, if the debtor's assets are sufficient to cover the costs, regular insolvency proceedings take place. The trustee liquidates the debtor's assets and distributes the proceeds among creditors. The debtor proposes an insolvency plan, which typically includes a 6-year repayment period.
After the insolvency plan is approved, the debtor enters a 6-year good conduct phase called Wohlverhaltensperiode. During this period, the debtor must adhere to the repayment plan, maintain gainful employment, and inform the trustee of any changes in their financial situation. The debtor is allowed to keep a portion of their income for living expenses.
If the debtor complies with the terms of the insolvency plan during the good conduct phase, the court grants a discharge of the remaining debts called Restschuldbefreiung. This typically occurs 6 years after the opening of insolvency proceedings.
This is really not that different from bankruptcies in America. I think Europeans are simply unaware of their options.
In the US Chapter 7 bankruptcy will remain on the individual's credit report for up to 10 years, making it difficult to obtain credit, secure housing, or find employment. Chapter 7 bankruptcy is a matter of public record, which can be accessed by anyone. The process is relatively quick, typically lasting 4-6 months. Most unsecured debts, such as credit card balances and medical bills, are discharged upon completion of the process.
Chapter 13 bankruptcy will remain on the individual's credit report for up to 7 years, which is less than Chapter 7. Like Chapter 7, Chapter 13 bankruptcy is a matter of public record. The repayment plan typically lasts for 3-5 years, during which the individual must make regular payments to creditors. After completing the repayment plan, the remaining eligible debts are discharged.
Verbraucherinsolvenzverfahren lasts longer (6 years) than both Chapter 7 (4-6 months) and Chapter 13 (3-5 years). Verbraucherinsolvenzverfahren and Chapter 13 involve a repayment plan, while Chapter 7 does not. Chapter 7 has a longer-lasting impact on credit ratings (10 years) compared to Verbraucherinsolvenzverfahren and Chapter 13 (6-7 years).
France has a procedure called "rétablissement personnel," which is similar to Chapter 7 in the US, allowing individuals to liquidate their assets and discharge their debts. In the UK, individuals can file for bankruptcy or enter into an Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA), which is similar to Chapter 13 in the US.
Yeah, as an employer I made much more money. It was also very stressful, as managing people can be quite a hassle. I much prefer being self-employed without employees.
Yep. I've been running a 1-man software business for 19 years. I could have taken on employees and made more money, but made a conscious decision not to. I don't regret it.
You could also fail completely if employed some people. Adding employees doesn’t necessarily equate with adding revenue, but 100% equates with adding cost. As a fellow solo business owner for 19 years (hi!) I’m sure you understand this, but few posters on this topic seem to to think that additional employee is a guaranteered profit. It’s especially dangerous when bad times come and you’re reluctant to lay off people.
Absolutely. My main product is an event seating planner (PerfectTablePlan) and my sales basically went to zero during the pandemic. So glad I didn't have any staff to pay/fire.
One useful take away from the time I was bored enough to let MLM people attempt to pitch me: "the only thing worse than having a business with only one employee is having a business with more than one employee"
> My company can fire me tomorrow, they will forget my name in 5 days. To "fire" my company, I need to find another job, maybe in another city, working with colleagues I don't know who may eat food at lunch break I don't like the smell of.
I don't think is very good comparison, generally. Some other company could offer you a job and you can leave any time. Depending on your tasks, the company might have very difficult time finding replacement personnel. This could be very significant (relative) cost for the company.
Personally I have always lived in countries where employee protection laws are very employee-friendly. Companies can't just fire people at will, they need good reasons. There might be significant fines for misfiring for wrong reasons.
It is a very good comparison (I work in California, at-will contracts).
The effect of me leaving my company and the effect of my company leaving me, for the one who is getting dropped, are not even remotely comparable.
The negative effects of my leaving or being laid off/fired on the company of 100k people are, more often than not, not distinguishable from zero. Many folks left my group and other groups I worked in and, invariably, the escapees were barely remembered a few weeks after leaving. The cemetery is full of indispensable people, and I was never told that I was indispensable.
The negative effects of my dismissal by the company on me range from almost zero (I wanted to leave anyway, I have ten other jobs lined up, they offer me more money) to very substantial (I didn't want to leave, I can't pay my mortgage, my partner sees me as a failure).
I respect the company I work for and my colleagues. But if I have to choose between advancing my cause and advancing the cause of the company (assuming the two causes are somewhat misaligned and assuming I am not doing anything considered "wrong"), I choose myself every day of the week and twice on Sunday
> The negative effects of my leaving or being laid off/fired on the company of 100k people are, more often than not, not distinguishable from zero. Many folks left my group and other groups I worked in and, invariably, the escapees were barely remembered a few weeks after leaving. The cemetery is full of indispensable people, and I was never told that I was indispensable.
In fact, I'd go as far as to say that having "indispensable people" at all is a management failure. Large corporations that have been around for decades have survived because they don't have indispensable people.
This is why you don't get more money even if you outcode everyone on your team. The company doesn't want a rockstar developer, it much prefers having 4 average devs (where "average" obviously varies a lot based on the company and how much they pay etc.) It's simple risk management: the company knows it can recruit another average dev if it needs to.
You are right that it makes perfect business sense to not have indispensable people. At the same time, trying to make everyone inter-replaceable has never worked and never will.
It is important to recognize that some people are heavier hitters than others.
Their risk management goes too far is what I am saying. They should relax it a little bit and they'll get better results.
By doing bad quality work on purpose will not make you learn anything. Better idea is to leave your underpaid position, start your own startup or join another that has better salary and compensation.