aty268

Out of curiosity, what would be a good where increased supply drives up cost? I can't reason any off the top of my head.

Simple economics tells me it does. Care to explain?

I'm from Texas, and I don't understand the stigma against developers building more housing. It drives down prices, and increases competition. Why would California citizens ever be against this?

Edit: The reason is because homeowners are competing with developers, so their own asset depreciates when supply increases. I was just thinking from the perspective of renters.

Location: Austin, Texas

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: Yes

Technologies: React/CSS/JS/HTML/NodeJS, Android(Java/Kotlin), Swift, Python, Go, SQL, C, C++, Docker, AWS, GCP

Résumé/CV: https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-young-a91250140/ (More projects not listed)

Email: andrewtateyoung@gmail.com

I'll soon be graduating from the University of Texas at Austin in CS. I have a few internships, i've built a few websites and apps that have gotten a number of users, and i've gotten funded for some of my projects. I work like a dog, i'm pretty smart, and I am willing to move anywhere. Thank you.

These businesses all seem like something that very well could make you money, but would never scale into a growth startup. And it seems the time it takes to build one of these or a growth startup isn't going to be too different. I might even say that you similar chances of making a similar amount of money from either.

So why not shoot for the larger moon?

Wow you faked a shitty question for publicity and didn't even bother to change your account. A bit more effort next time eh?

That's good advice, interesting you didn't finish college. I'm working full time as a Software Engineer now, I just kind of "worked" my way out of school. I would bet this is pretty common among people who grew up poor.

My dad was a very blue collar banker without a college degree at Bear Stearns, and we went bankrupt when 08 bubble burst.

We moved from our multi million dollar house to live in a trailer park where I slept in a bed with my brother and ate shitty food throughout middle and high school.

I would be really interested to have someone study the long term effects of it on me, because I think it's actually made me extremely ambitious and a little crazy. I'm the only person who made it out of that shithole, and I have very high standards for myself now. I just never stopped fighting, and probably will never stop. I'm 22 and my blood pressure is off the charts, but I guess that's the price you pay!

I guess I wonder how situational poverty (rich -> poor) affects you differently than just normal poverty. I've never met another person in a similar situation. Can anyone else relate?

This is very very true.

Well, I was around 3 at the time so not really.

I have a question. How in the world do VC's ever fall for this bullshit? I mean in most situations they have made enough money on their own to invest, so they aren't stupid right?

That is a good point, and I agree.

It is a bad decision, I don't see your point.

Huh that is a fun fact. Crazy how one bad decision can just destroy your company.

From what I understand, Snapchat killed it. They sold to Twitter pretty early for like $30M and Twitter just didn't move quick enough.

Also, a lot of the popular viners wanted to be paid in some way, and they didn't really have a clear way for that to happen, so the creators pulled out and it died.

TikTok just did it better. Creators can easily get paid, videos are not forced to be 6 second max, and they executed better.

Yes I agree, and I didn't. Force of habit. I have changed the wording.

You are correct. I have changed fun to unfun.

Unfun fact, Colin Kroll, one of the founders of Vine and HQ Trivia died of a heroin overdose a while ago. He was an interesting guy. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/16/nyregion/hq-trivia-overdo...

Yes, but the average person with savings isn't going to create wealth in any way that a business can with that money. Most especially if that money is "saved" in stocks or bonds. This might be better for people in the short term, but we are talking about sociatal progress not short term benefits.

But there's the obviously counterexamples of companies hoarding billions and not paying dividends because they don't know what to do with it.

2) Is a monopoly or a perfectly competitive business better for societal progress?

In theory, a monopoloy would be because you can make more profit and constantly reinvest more than any competitor into making better products and holding your monopoly.

Unfortunately, that doesn't happen in practice, because monopolies tend to buy competitors in order to stifle competition rather than reinvesting and building a better product.

So I think acquiring competitors tends to inhibit progress because you are wasting money that you could be reinvesting into building a better product for society.

I've always wondered about why popularity based pricing doesn't exist in everyday life. This explanation makes sense. Thank you.

Yes, Dallas and Houston are both pretty decent and diverse cities for tech. Dallas still has some old country money people, but has become much more liberal these past few years as people from out of state are moving there.

I agree austin is an exception, but dallas will be soon as well. I can't count the number of insanely liberal people I know who moved from California to Dallas.

Apparently, yet masses of people are flocking to the 20th century wasteland Texas from California anyhow.

What a shortsighted, useless comment. I live in Austin, life here is wonderful and predominantly liberal with no income tax and high salaries for a software engineer. I wouldn't live anywhere else.

People are leaving California and NY to live in Texas for a reason.

My girlfriends parents are hyper liberal beach bums from California who moved to Dallas and said they will never move back.

Few things:

1) Salaries are essentially capped at $120,000.

2) Stock options are very rare.

Basically, you can't get rich. No different than working at Google but with lower salary potential. This is why Switzerland will never be the next SV.

The capped salary is a really big deal.

Perhaps this is true, but I would be terribly naive not to be afraid of what China is capable of doing, and the future of humanity if we don't take this issue seriously.

I was an avid supporter of Yang, but I think he is a bit naive (Dr. Oz comments?) isn't a great speaker, and hasn't said anything much about China. UBI is the second most important issue on the docket, China is way further ahead.

What do you think?

Can somebody help me out here. I think the biggest issue on my mind for the coming election is the U.S. and China relations.

I don't see any candidate who seems to have an interest whatsoever in being tough on China, and more terrifying, could lead us during a time that something bad did happen.

Trump isn't the greatest, but he is the ONLY one I can see who I would trust would at least have the gall to stand up to China.

If anyone is curious about what the pro China arguments look like: https://www.reddit.com/r/Sino/comments/df2mym/blizzard_pulls...