Derek Sivers Renounces his US Citizenship • Hacker News Board

Re: Derek Sivers Renounces his US Citizenship

#131

Post by maratd » Tue, May 08, 2012, 7:54 PM UTC

noahc wrote: post #126

marshallp wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not the same. Unions are equivalent to crony capitalism (ie. regulations put in place to prevent competition), but most of what companies do is just free markets at work (which helps the consumer).

How is a union a regulation? A union is a contractual obligation between workers that they will only work under certain conditions.

> contractual obligation

In what country? In the US, most are mandated by law. All government jobs are union, regardless of the wishes of the worker.

Contracts are mutually consented to. If it's a union job, you have to be a part of the union. How is forcing workers to do something they do not want beneficial?

I'm all for unions where someone can join and leave freely without the threat of force or loss of work. Do we have that in the US? No.

Re: Derek Sivers Renounces his US Citizenship

#132

Post by _delirium » Tue, May 08, 2012, 8:26 PM UTC

sjtgraham wrote: post #125

run4yourlives wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every country has requirements of its citizens. A lot force you to serve in the Armed Forces. The US doesn't do that. While I agree that the US isn't as welcoming as it once was and has always had an onerous tax code, for foreigners it is still a huge benefit to work and do business there. The funny thing is that Citizenship in the US has been essentially devalued by non-citizen working categories that have been deve…

Permanent Residents (Green Card holders) also have to pay tax on their worldwide income, even if they do not reside in the US.

That's true, but adding some of the obligations of citizenship to permanent residency isn't uncommon, either. For example, permanent residents of Singapore of military age must serve in its military. Personally, I'd rather file a 1040 than attend boot camp, so am pretty happy with my U.S. citizenship, even as an expatriate. :)

Re: Derek Sivers Renounces his US Citizenship

#133

Post by _delirium » Tue, May 08, 2012, 8:28 PM UTC

jarek wrote: post #58

achille2 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mind listing out the countries, and how one goes about becoming a citizenship collector? My parents sacrificed an incredible deal to come to the US. For the life of me I can't comprehend why someone would do this. Loss of citizenship is permanent. Your kids lose it as well. Why would derek would do this to his kids.

> For the life of me I can't comprehend why someone would do this. Loss of citizenship is permanent. Your kids lose it as well. Why would derek would do this to his kids. Maybe he doesn't want his kids to have to deal with the U.S. I.R.S. every year of their life, regardless of whether or not they live in the U.S.? Just one of the possible reasons.

His kids will now be forced to do two years of mandatory military service in the Singapore army, though, and in addition, must remain in the army reserves and attend annual refresher training until the age of 40. I'd consider that considerably worse than dealing with the IRS once a year.

Re: Derek Sivers Renounces his US Citizenship

#134

Post by _delirium » Tue, May 08, 2012, 8:33 PM UTC

jakeonthemove wrote: post #105

biomene wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way is communism dangerous? I fail to see any inherent danger in a form of society that distributes its wealth evenly across its citizens.

What run4yourlives said. To put it simply - when all the wealth is equally spread, there is no incentive for anyone to do anything. If everyone is paid equally and has the same benefits, there's no point in working harder or smarter - you just do the bare minimum and be done with it. Let's take a capitalist factory: workers are paid $5 per assembled iPad. Those who want more money can assemble 100 iPads and make $500…

To put it simply - when all the wealth is equally spread, there is no incentive for anyone to do anything.

I don't think this is true in general, though it's true for some jobs (mostly jobs that nobody wants to do). For example, I don't think scientists, or even most HN types, are motivated solely by money, and would just sit around drinking beer if they couldn't make more money. Many of us are more motivated by science and technology. Making money is nice, but I would still work on tech if it made absolutely no difference to my salary. The reward is finding interesting things, gaining recognition for my ideas from my peers, etc., not just some monetary bonuses.

If anything I think there's a slight negative correlation between in-it-for-the-money and quality in science. The people who are there to optimize money are usually good game-players, adept at working the system and working their way up bureaucracy. Brilliant scientists often aren't even very good at that, and are more often really driven by the science first, perhaps peer recognition second, and maximizing money a distant third.

Re: Derek Sivers Renounces his US Citizenship

#135

Post by noahc » Tue, May 08, 2012, 8:44 PM UTC

maratd wrote: post #131

noahc wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is a union a regulation? A union is a contractual obligation between workers that they will only work under certain conditions.

> contractual obligation In what country? In the US, most are mandated by law. All government jobs are union, regardless of the wishes of the worker. Contracts are mutually consented to. If it's a union job, you have to be a part of the union. How is forcing workers to do something they do not want beneficial? I'm all for unions where someone can join and leave freely without the threat of force or loss of work. Do w…

I'm not sure that is correct. If you look here[1], at the federal level it's about 31%. I also know of several teachers who are not in a Union.

As far as Union jobs go, it depends. There are Union jobs that require it and don't require it. However, this has nothing to do with the worker, but is actually a contractual obligation that the employer agreed to.

[1] http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2011/01/federal...

Re: Derek Sivers Renounces his US Citizenship

#136

Post by raintrees » Tue, May 08, 2012, 8:56 PM UTC

InclinedPlane wrote: post #129

raintrees wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or (re)invented capitalism? Vouchers == Church Indulgences == Dollars

#cough#that'sthejokecaptainobvious#cough#

(My wife pipes in "Way to go, Master of the obvious..." with much tremolo).

Yes, I admit, I can be slow on the uptake... Sorry. :)

Re: Derek Sivers Renounces his US Citizenship

#137

Post by jakeonthemove » Tue, May 08, 2012, 9:11 PM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #134

jakeonthemove wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What run4yourlives said. To put it simply - when all the wealth is equally spread, there is no incentive for anyone to do anything. If everyone is paid equally and has the same benefits, there's no point in working harder or smarter - you just do the bare minimum and be done with it. Let's take a capitalist factory: workers are paid $5 per assembled iPad. Those who want more money can assemble 100 iPads and make $500…

To put it simply - when all the wealth is equally spread, there is no incentive for anyone to do anything. I don't think this is true in general, though it's true for some jobs (mostly jobs that nobody wants to do). For example, I don't think scientists, or even most HN types, are motivated solely by money, and would just sit around drinking beer if they couldn't make more money. Many of us are more motivated by scie…

True, but what's the incentive beyond creating your new product/tech? There's no one to buy it but the government (unless it's something that appeals to the ordinary citizen and is not banned because it's competing with a gov-issued product), and then what? How will you develop your new theory/tech in the future?

Re: Derek Sivers Renounces his US Citizenship

#138

Post by maratd » Tue, May 08, 2012, 9:21 PM UTC

noahc wrote: post #135

maratd wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> contractual obligation In what country? In the US, most are mandated by law. All government jobs are union, regardless of the wishes of the worker. Contracts are mutually consented to. If it's a union job, you have to be a part of the union. How is forcing workers to do something they do not want beneficial? I'm all for unions where someone can join and leave freely without the threat of force or loss of work. Do w…

I'm not sure that is correct. If you look here[1], at the federal level it's about 31%. I also know of several teachers who are not in a Union. As far as Union jobs go, it depends. There are Union jobs that require it and don't require it. However, this has nothing to do with the worker, but is actually a contractual obligation that the employer agreed to. [1] http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2011/01/fede…

> If you look here[1], at the federal level it's about 31%.

The devil is in the details. I wonder what that figure would look like if you excluded part-time workers like, say, the census workers who are collecting the very data you cite?

> However, this has nothing to do with the worker, but is actually a contractual obligation that the employer agreed to.

Nope. The last time an employer "agreed" to a union was probably a century ago. Federal law mandates how the process is handled and the employer doesn't agree to anything. It is forced on him.

Which is fine.

What isn't fine is that it is forced on the workers too, even if they don't want it. And every worker after them.

Not cool.

Re: Derek Sivers Renounces his US Citizenship

#139

Post by _delirium » Tue, May 08, 2012, 9:30 PM UTC

jakeonthemove wrote: post #137

_delirium wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To put it simply - when all the wealth is equally spread, there is no incentive for anyone to do anything. I don't think this is true in general, though it's true for some jobs (mostly jobs that nobody wants to do). For example, I don't think scientists, or even most HN types, are motivated solely by money, and would just sit around drinking beer if they couldn't make more money. Many of us are more motivated by scie…

True, but what's the incentive beyond creating your new product/tech? There's no one to buy it but the government (unless it's something that appeals to the ordinary citizen and is not banned because it's competing with a gov-issued product), and then what? How will you develop your new theory/tech in the future?

I don't have in mind some kind of Soviet-style authoritarian state that would censor things and whatnot. Was just commenting on the more general issue of whether people would create things if it had no effect on their salary; I think many people would. I certainly would; actually I probably do more things as side projects than as "real" projects as it is. The incentive is that technology is interesting, and people using and commenting on my stuff is rewarding. How to actually set that up in practice, I have less confidence in. My own politics tend towards more Scandinavian style social-welfare state, rather than communism, because it seems much clearer how to make it work in practice (market economy, but with high taxes, high level of public services, and a strong social safety net).

Even within a strongly capitalist system like the US, being motivated by things other than money actually used to be closer to the norm for a large number of professionals. The current situation where people change companies a lot, get large bonuses, and have widely differential pay, is a pretty recent phenomenon. At Bell Labs, everyone got fairly similar salaries, despite the fact that some people were much more successful in research than others. Of course, you had to be at a certain level of success to get there at all, but once you were there, you just got the normal Bell Labs salary, with raises tied to seniority, old-corporate-style. Yet many people there excelled anyway, despite the fact that they could've sat around pulling the exact same salary without putting in much effort. Why? Because they were motivated by things other than money, I would guess.

Re: Derek Sivers Renounces his US Citizenship

#140

Post by noahc » Tue, May 08, 2012, 9:33 PM UTC

maratd wrote: post #138

noahc wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that is correct. If you look here[1], at the federal level it's about 31%. I also know of several teachers who are not in a Union. As far as Union jobs go, it depends. There are Union jobs that require it and don't require it. However, this has nothing to do with the worker, but is actually a contractual obligation that the employer agreed to. [1] http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2011/01/fede…

> If you look here[1], at the federal level it's about 31%. The devil is in the details. I wonder what that figure would look like if you excluded part-time workers like, say, the census workers who are collecting the very data you cite? > However, this has nothing to do with the worker, but is actually a contractual obligation that the employer agreed to. Nope. The last time an employer "agreed" to a union was proba…

What law specifically are you talking about?

Federal unions have complained that their low union membership totals is due to the federal government being the largest ‘right-to-work’ employer. Right-to-work allows an employee to determine whether he or she wants to join a union. It also keeps employers from making union membership an employment prerequisite.

Via: http://ohmygov.com/blogs/general_news/archive/2009/02/02/a-l...