If by the wealth you mean land, then yes it's finite.
But the ownership of man-crafted things is not. You can always create new apps or websites that generate values. Those man-crafted things can become useless someday as well. For example, a 3.5" floppy disk drive probably isn't worth what it used to be anymore.
This is definitely a problem worth more innovations. But it should be kept in mind that the core idea of coming up with such a model is literally to design a contract. By recognizing that, it becomes evident that the contract must benefit, and be voluntarily acceptable, by both counterparties.
In finance, we already have a lot of innovations, thanks to the significant reduction of the transaction/contract-enforcement costs. I guess that is why it has not happened in other fields like employment contracts or partnership agreements. The designing and enforcement costs of any innovative contracts are just too high (considering you have to hire a layer to confirm all those changes and when you have to sue someone for violations).
In my opinion, `git add -p` should be the default, and a `-a` or alike to forcibly commit the entire working tree. I have developed a habit that I wouldn't feel comfortable if I haven't reviewed the chunks I am going to make into the commit.
While there are many people who don't understand git's staging area, there are far less that understand how to selectively stage/commit chunks, or even that such functionality is available at all.
It should be a crime for people to blindly stage everything. Cleaning up after my colleagues easily falls under the "lost cause" umbrella.
Whereas I don't feel comfortable with untested work, so "git checkout -p" (undo a change) and "git stash -p" (postpone a change) are how I get the workspace clean enough to commit.
That risk assessment assumes only the technical aspects. But there are still institutional, management and other 'people' issues that could render any engineering guarantee fruitless. Otherwise, the delivery of nuclear plants would have no way to off schedule.
I have no objection to the development of nuclear technology. But as I understand, what concerns people is not entirely the 'likelihood' of the disasters but rather the 'severity' of them. After all, People make mistakes and organizations corrupt. So, I think any tech progresses on the scale-down of the worst case where all safety is off would be far more helpful in convincing the public.
I recently realized that there are roughly two kinds of people, namely people who are good at symbolic/abstract ideas and people who are good at real/physical/touchable things, which can be considered orthogonal to the extrovert/introvert categorization. For a software engineering team, I find it tends to be suboptimal to have a physical-thinking oriented manager who dislikes abstract, symbolic notions, even though they are brilliant and would probably a good fit for say electrical or mechanical engineering teams.
My sampling space isn't large enough, but it's interesting to keep an eye on the personalities of the managers in your organization from that perspective.
In my experience there are two kinds of people; those who are good at many different things, and those who believe there are roughly two kinds of people.
I mean that only half jokingly. One of the reasons I like to work at smaller organizations these days is the pervasive belief in larger orgs that somebody has to fall into one of two categories. This is often rationalized as a way to identify strengths, however more often than not IMHO it's due to insecurity in ones own deficits.
This is interesting. I self-identify in the symbolic/abstract side of things and really struggle with how difficult it is when dealing with the real/physical/touchable camp. I've especially struggled with superiors who are in the latter group which tracks with what you say here. And as another point of anecdata I've personally been meandering my way into the leadership/management turf over recent years.
Yeah, I noticed that if I want to be perceived as good in x I often have to pretend that I am bad at y.
In reality, you can be good at both and like both and switch between them. You might have a preference and still be reasonably good at both. You might decide one is weakness and put effort into learning it overcoming initial dislike.
That would probably be true if all other conditions held constant.
However, Silicon Valley can pay handsome money because many companies located there run well and outperform their competitors for a fertile global market. And those companies can beat their competitors because (at least part of the reasons) they have the best talents available. If the skilled engineers from China, European, India all went back to their home countries, would the competitiveness of those SV companies be no different relative to their foreign competitors? If companies in SV were losing its advantage to another tech hub outside the united states, would they still be able to pay so well? I doubt that.
> That assumes the demand and the supply are independent variables.
When the argument is that an increase in supply causes lower wages your counter argument doesn't make any sense at all. For wages to rise the demand has to grow faster than the oversupply. The primary way to increase demand is by lowering the price of a service aka workers get paid less.
In other words it is possible that even with an extreme amount of immigration everyone still gets a decently paying job but in the end wages across the market have fallen.
Whatever pie analogy you're trying to pull doesn't matter. I don't know why people keep getting nerdsniped by that word and often even use their own hyper specific definition of it which doesn't match the definition of the other person. There is no law that says people always benefit from a growing economy and there is no law that says people can never benefit from a shrinking economy.
