Tech Workers Backing Candidates Looking to Break Up Their Employers • Hacker News Board

Re: Tech Workers Backing Candidates Looking to Break Up Their Employers

#241

Post by maxerickson » Mon, Nov 04, 2019, 12:01 PM UTC

perl4ever wrote: post #211

maxerickson wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, lots of billionaires also essentially got lucky. DOS and Windows weren't the most glorious software to ever stalk the Earth, they were the operating systems that happened to get popular on cheap hardware. Arguing that Bill Gates created all that wealth that comes with the network effect inherent in software and a homeowner is unduly appropriating community value is really something or other.

Some nobody told Gates exactly how to get rich with computers. I read it (the specific advice) in an old issue of Dr. Dobbs Journal of Computer Calisthenics and Orthodontia. The key is that out of millions of people saying millions of things, Gates was the one to pick up on the important one. So, sure, he was lucky in a way, to be around and read it, but it seems unfair to say he merely appropriated value that belong…

That Gates is the one that succeeded is not evidence that no one else followed the advice.

I mean, there is actual historical evidence of other cheap operating systems for cheap computers and so on.

Re: Tech Workers Backing Candidates Looking to Break Up Their Employers

#242

Post by littlestymaar » Mon, Nov 04, 2019, 12:16 PM UTC

robomartin wrote: post #230

pcwalton wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You moved from describing the Democrats to describing the Democratic Socialists of America. Those are two very different groups. As a Democrat, I find the DSA rather obnoxious, because they perpetually run NIMBY candidates here in San Francisco who favor the interests of rich homeowners over renters. (Even in SF, the DSA finds itself unable to win anything more than supervisor seats; the mayor and state representativ…

The Democratic party you think you belong to isn't the Democratic party that is today. Far from it. And that's the problem. As a classical liberal I identified myself with the Democratic party far more so than the GOP on many layers. What is out there today has nothing to do with what this party was about 30 years ago. Today, they are dangerous. The ideas they are pushing are destructive. If they gain overwhelming po…

> I've seen this playbook before in Latin America --many times-- it doesn't end well.

The good news for the US is that they don't have an imperialist neighbour who's going to crush their economy and support a coup to shut down any socialist threat to their imperialism. Because that's what happened all the times in Latin America.

> The proper context is external to the US: China. They are laughing their asses off right now and just hoping people like Warren or Bernie ascend to power. If they get another eight years of unimpeded growth they will ascend to the first economy of the world and be unstoppable […].

That's a really strange thing for a “classical liberal” to say. This is straight from the hardcore neoconservative narrative.

Re: Tech Workers Backing Candidates Looking to Break Up Their Employers

#243

Post by rehasu » Mon, Nov 04, 2019, 12:29 PM UTC

malvosenior wrote: post #118

rehasu wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we ignoring Gen Y?

Gen Y and Millenials are the same thing (at least that's how I've always understood it): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials

I don't know who came up with that definition. Gen-Y is born late 80s and 90s. Millenials are born in the new MILLENIUM.

Re: Tech Workers Backing Candidates Looking to Break Up Their Employers

#244

Post by littlestymaar » Mon, Nov 04, 2019, 12:42 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #240

littlestymaar wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Democrats are saying yes to the question about "socialism" really to express their support for Democratic policies that have been smeared as "socialist", rather than anything having to do with central planning. While most democrats aren't actually supporting socialism, interestingly enough, socialism doesn't necessarily have something to do with social planning either: socialism is…

You can't "get rid" of capitalism without involving some sort of central planning. If anything, the original proponents of socialism including Marx never supposed that capitalism would be something to "get rid of" in any way; they thought socialism would only become viable when capitalism had reached its highest stage of development, and then the "transition" into socialism would be relatively natural and painless. "…

> You can't "get rid" of capitalism without involving some sort of central planning.

Of course you can. We even had a practical example in Syrian Kurdistan for several years in a row. Unfortunately, Rojava was destroyed by the Turkish invasion… It looks like the only thing you can't really do without some kind one central planning is war. Which would explain why every anarchist attempt have been crushed so far.

> when capitalism had reached its highest stage of development, and then the "transition" into socialism would be relatively natural and painless.

Natural (and according to Marx, it wasn't “relatively natural” but more like the obvious course of history) but in no way painless. Revolution and temporary dictatorship was part of Marx vision all along.

Also their is plenty of non-Marxist socialism, some being older than Marx and some modern.

> that would mean keeping all their eggs in one basket!

That may be an irrational choice, but humans do put all their eggs in one basket all the time! And BTW, this popular saying isn't that insightful: if you cannot afford to lose a single egg, you better put them in a single basket, because the probability of one basket failing is lower than multiple baskets ;).

Re: Tech Workers Backing Candidates Looking to Break Up Their Employers

#245

Post by mcv » Mon, Nov 04, 2019, 1:03 PM UTC

lawrenceyan wrote: post #223

I prefer Andrew Yang's method of adding on a general value added tax in addition to providing a basic income. This ensures a distribution of wealth that guarantees a minimum base while not discouraging people from aiming higher by forcing a cap on income.

I support basic income, but I'm not a big fan of value added tax. It's a corporate tax that ends up being paid by consumers. Investments and buying abroad is often except, so it ends up as a somewhat regressive tax.

Re: Tech Workers Backing Candidates Looking to Break Up Their Employers

#246

Post by mcv » Mon, Nov 04, 2019, 1:05 PM UTC

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #65

I wonder what the support is after Warren revealed her tax plans? I would think that increasing the capital gains taxes and requiring taxes on stock appreciation regardless of they are sold would affect Silicon Valley workers who often have a large part of their competition as stocks/equity.

For that reason, big Wallstreet banks have threatened not to support Warren if she becomes the Democratic candidate. But apparently plenty of employees of those Wallstreet banks do support her for exactly that reason: they know better than anyone that the situation at the top of their employer is unhealthy.

Re: Tech Workers Backing Candidates Looking to Break Up Their Employers

#247

Post by jki275 » Mon, Nov 04, 2019, 1:11 PM UTC

dlp211 wrote: post #123

jki275 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The post you're replying to is presumably a high income left-leaning voter from the way they phrased the comment. They're literally expressing what you say doesn't exist quite clearly. And anyway your own candidate in 2016 famously called everyone that didn't agree with her "deplorable", and it's a common theme throughout left-leaning high income coastal communities to look down on those hicks in flyover country who…

"I know there are only 60 days left to make our case – and don't get complacent; don't see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think, "Well, he's done this time." We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They're…

Oh sorry, it was half of the people who don't agree with her.

What she was doing was clearly trying to paint any idiot who would vote for trump as racist, xxist, "deplorable" people -- just as I said.

Re: Tech Workers Backing Candidates Looking to Break Up Their Employers

#248

Post by g00gler » Mon, Nov 04, 2019, 1:32 PM UTC

zepto wrote: post #197

g00gler wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can also say the search engine and operating system drive the ad network. Google the search engine could charge an ad network a lot for the right to show sponsored results and provide analytics. Android/Chrome could charge a lot for user data, analytics, have their own mobile ad network and app store. Android could also start charging a licensing fee to vendors Etc etc

How does any of this help anyone? It seems like it just creates a lot of inefficiency.

More companies, more jobs, more competition.

For example, other ad networks can buy ad placement in google search.

Re: Tech Workers Backing Candidates Looking to Break Up Their Employers

#249

Post by zozbot234 » Mon, Nov 04, 2019, 1:33 PM UTC

littlestymaar wrote: post #244

zozbot234 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't "get rid" of capitalism without involving some sort of central planning. If anything, the original proponents of socialism including Marx never supposed that capitalism would be something to "get rid of" in any way; they thought socialism would only become viable when capitalism had reached its highest stage of development, and then the "transition" into socialism would be relatively natural and painless. "…

> You can't "get rid" of capitalism without involving some sort of central planning. Of course you can. We even had a practical example in Syrian Kurdistan for several years in a row. Unfortunately, Rojava was destroyed by the Turkish invasion… It looks like the only thing you can't really do without some kind one central planning is war. Which would explain why every anarchist attempt have been crushed so far. > whe…

> We even had a practical example in Syrian Kurdistan

That's getting rid of capital, in the physical sense; war will do that quite nicely indeed. It's not what's normally meant by socialism - even Marx knew better than that!

Re: Tech Workers Backing Candidates Looking to Break Up Their Employers

#250

Post by mcv » Mon, Nov 04, 2019, 1:56 PM UTC

methodover wrote: post #88

rmrfrmrf wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of social democrats start out as libertarians and then move left once they see the bigger picture of power dynamics beyond the individual.

This was my experience as well. Started off as a libertarian. But then I started working, first in the lobbying industry, then in Silicon Valley. Meritocracy is not as good an idea as it seems to be in practice.

The only problem with meritocracy is that it's unattainable in a society with inherited power differences. Other than that it would be a great idea. Just one that hasn't truly been tried outside limited organisations yet.