He's actually agreeing it reduces the need for engineers to produce the same level of output as now. He's making the argument that companies would then desire more output to capitalize on additional ideas/projects. I could see it going either way, but likely demand will fall.
What about a law where you couldnt use over a million dollars (to exclude normal people) a year of any asset as collateral for a loan unless you paid capital gains on it at its current valuation?
You create a lot of other side effects that destroy a lot of valid activity and thus cause a large economic depressive effect, or you will start needing to provide a lot of other counterbalances that will be even worse or cost the government a lot more.
This has the finance equivalent of feeling like cookie banners will actually do anything.
Political power will advocate for it's power, you have to go one level higher and interact at that level, not on tax law tweaks.
To give an example of where this has gone wrong already, look at the entire interaction between startup stock, ISOs and AMT and how it creates a horrible trap for startup employees, but not for founders and investors who get a lot of very nice tax benefits like QSBS, no AMT, so on. Because startup employees are diffuse, usually have unstable employment and are usually younger, this hasn't been fixed to this day.
While other countries like Israel have this fixed in a very elegant way, where you can exercise without tax bombs and only actually have tax liability when you actually can and do practically realize or liquidate the stock gains.
If I pledge $10M in stock for a $2M loan, what's the taxable event? The full $10M valuation, or my $2M loan? What if the stock is in a company worth $40M, but the sale of $10M in stock causes it to be worth $5M afterwards and the private company's value is reassessed to $20M, after I got the loan and after my pledge?
reply