aoeuasdf1

I would make around 240k if my initial stock grants hadn’t nearly doubled in value since I joined. I will probably actually make less money once my 4 year grant runs out, all things being equal.

5 years total experience.

  "Sorry

in both Chrome and Firefox. What's up with that?

It would be nice if there was some kind of way to signal true remorse, like a way of speaking with our bodies, a "body language".

No one says the behavior doesn't matter - but without an expectation of social cost (apologies, and further criticism and reputation loss when the apology is tone deaf and insincere), why would anyone care about behaving well? Demanding apologies isn't worthless - it's a power thing.

Still, that doesn't prove that the individual points weren't fabricated at the time.

Plus, the innocent who aren't jailed pay taxes and do productive things for society.

This is all ignoring the human cost of the equation.

Agreeableness is only 42% heritable (the least of the Big 5), and the relative impact of the genetic component decreases if you make a deliberate effort to change your agreeableness, or are incentivized to do so by your environment.

You mention people are risk averse (logarithmic utility of money). I posit that that is only true for non-altruists. An altruist prefers to save 10000 lives nearly exactly 10 times as much as they prefer to save 1000 lives. Given a secure enough financial base off of which the logarithmic personal rewards factor is a non-issue, this is the primary driver for plenty of people that I personally know.

Is your opinion independent of evidence?

I'm still a bit confused. If the workers own the outputs of their labor, then if I produce a tool, algorithm or machine, do I own it fully? What happens when someone else wants to use my machine to produce other goods - can I lend it or sell it to them in exchange for other goods they own, or in exchange for labor vouchers they own?

My point is that capital produces value when combined with labor - its multiplicative effect is why it is scarce to begin with. If it is to be priced efficiently, it seems to me that we are just re-constructing Capitalism from first principles.

> labour vouchers, which are distinct from money because they are non-exchangeable with others.

In the labor voucher system, why would anyone do hard labor when they could do easy labor for the same number of Hours? Who decides what labor is, and how are people incentivized to do scarce or useful work over non-scarce, non-useful work? The idea of all Hours being equal seems to intentionally flout the principal of comparative advantage.

> The absence of the state does not preclude collective action or sets of rules. In the same way that if someone appropriated means of production and forced people to work the machines for wage, I would encourage revolution against them, even in an anarchist society.

Oh, ok, so a State still exists, then. What attributes of this state make it "anarchism"?

> There is no payment, this is the whole point of Communism and anarchism. Wage labour is off the table.

I think you misunderstood me. By "who pays them" I meant: how are they rewarded for creating capital? Can they sell their capital on a market, or lend it out? If not, how do we reconcile the difference between the flat reward function for different types of work and their vastly different scarcities and social utilities?

Do you acknowledge the fundamental principle that not all labor is equally useful?

- Work for MEGACORP and produce $400k/year of value

- Develop a new business which has a 30% chance of succeeding. If it succeeds, you estimate it will be worth $50M.

Suppose the marginal tax rate for income above $400k/year is 40%, and you want to maximize your expected earnings (say, to donate to a charity you think is particularly effective). Which option is rational?

Now suppose the marginal tax rate for income above $400k/year is 100%. Now no matter how high we change that $50M number to be, it's always better to just work for $MEGACORP, because you get a guaranteed paycheck.

This is known as a distortion, and is the true cost of taxes. I personally don't care too much where the wealth people creates goes, and I'd like to see less income inequality - but let's not kill the golden goose while we're at it. There are far less distortionary taxes than extremely high income tax rates.

- Does money exist? If not, how are workers compensated for the full value of their labor?

- Does a central bank exist? If not, how is inflation & deflation controlled? (A common criticism of Marxists is capitalisms boom / bust cycle - how does getting rid of the government solve this?)

- Without a government, how are market failures solved:

Who discourages negative externalities such as pollution, violence, theft, human trafficking, pushing dangerous drugs on minors? It's in no-one's individual self-interest to prevent these things - they require collective action.

Who funds actions with positive externalities such as trash collection, fundamental scientific research, maintaining and protecting national parks, etc

- Many modern industries are extremely capital intensive. I get the idea that a revolution will expropriate existing capital. But going forward, who will create new capital if owning & profiting from it is impossible? Who pays the laborer who produces capital? In my understanding, we either need to incentivize capital production by having the government pay for it and own it (state-owned industries), or by allowing people to buy it and profit off of the ownership. How does anarchism solve this?

I get vastly different, mostly non-answers to these questions from different leftists.