I wouldn't go this way, at least not now. But the European Commission should mandate the usage of EU based software for every public institution in the EU, at all levels. That means from the European Parliament all the way down to municipalities. So no more Windows, Office, Azure, AWS etc. in public institutions all across the EU.
I also think LLMs are well suited to find niche strange bugs way quicker. User posts esoteric error on the issues page. LLM with proper context may converge quickly, allowing the programmer to implement a fix.
This question is always strikes me as a false dichotomy, i.e. "we have to tax them, or else they leave". The issue is in my view is that constructing a system where the existence of such a rich class has become necessary to raise enough tax revenue. Organizing your country with more sustainable growth where income disparities aren't so high means you don't have this problem to this extent.
Who said "we have to tax them, or else they leave"? That doesn't seem to be what anyone is saying. The issue is that this group is threatening to leave if they are taxed.
I agree you should want to avoid having an income disparity like this, but we are where we are. The goal of this tax is to help correct that disparity.
Then the next question is why does wealth, in practically all industrious countries seem to distribute disproportionally and not uniformly?
One argument could be that maybe entrepreneurial personality traits aren't normally distributed, and unless you find a way change people's personalities in mass, the imbalance in wealth attraction will remain inherent.
Then you might ask, if that's true, do you I want to enforce equality, potentially dragging down the economy to mediocracy (for example many stagnating European economies) or maybe accept that current nature does not meet our societal desire for equality.
I think you have the right idea, if poorly worded. The economy is not a zero sum game, but the idea works when you apply it not on wealth but on wealth increase. That's more or less the famous r > g formula of Piketty: when the rate of return of capital is larger than the growth rate of the economy, wealth gets more concentrated. Its application has been disputed but the basic principle certainly applies in many situations.
There's a finite amount of money. There's not a finite amount of wealth.
Having lots of wealth does not mean other people have less. If that were the case, there'd be as much wealth today as there was 1000 years ago. Making a company and having it valued at whatever value, does not remove that amount of wealth from other people.
Not trying to argue, per se. I'm saying that you gave me a lot to think about.
> There's not a finite amount of wealth.
I think there is a finite amount of wealth, at any given time, same as "money". Money is a transactable medium to measure value, rather than as a type of good on its own. The medium can change region to region and over time.
Wealth is an aggregate of all valuables you possess, including expected gains.
Wealth is also subjective, because of these properties. People agree on some approximations for the purposes of transactions with money.
> Making a company and having it valued at whatever value, does not remove that amount of wealth from other people.
Depends on perspective, I would say. When the value rises in a public company, even when it's just the expectation, you have people dumping their wealth (as money) into the company. So yes, it does for large public companies. While it does grant some rights, in a practical sense it's a hole you dump money into with the expectation that you can reach in and take out some amount in the future. I can understand this is what is envisioned, when people talk about wealth as zero sum. I don't agree, but I get what they are going at.
> If that were the case, there'd be as much wealth today as there was 1000 years ago.
Wealth is partially based on expectation. The growth in population fuels increases in wealth, because that's the part of the equation that is speculative.
But relative wealth is all that matters, when it comes to lifestyle. If I have $100K net worth, and I'm living in a city where the first standard deviation net worth range is $80K to $120K, then I'm living a pretty average lifestyle, can afford my groceries and entertainment, and feel middle class.
If I have a $200K net worth, and I'm living in a city where the range is $1M to $500M, then I'm pretty much living in poverty, even though I have "more wealth" than in scenario 1.
This is also why, although my absolute wealth today is hundreds or thousands of times more than a king in the middle ages, I'm not actually living like a king today.
It's also how gentrification works. You're living somewhere and all of a sudden a bunch of very wealthy people move in, raising the prices of everything. You're no more or less wealthy than before, but everything has become slightly worse.
There is not a finite about of wealth, but the wealthy are currently using their position to reduce the amount of wealth the average person has, by driving up prices of everyday requirements so that they can make more money.
It's not an issue that they are wealthy, it's that they are abusing that position to gain even more wealth at the expense of the rest of the population.
That there is more wealth now than in the past does not even remotely imply that there is infinite wealth.
> Making a company and having it valued at whatever value, does not remove that amount of wealth from other people.
This is a strawman. The ability of people to accumulate wealth is affected by every aspect of the economic system, including the means by which those companies are acquiring wealth.
No, he's rich because (1) he had first mover advantage (credit to him) (2) he has a good sense of how to run a business (3) he exploits a large number of people to his own benefit.
Isn't there also an effect like the second billion dollar being easier to get than the first? I mean all your points are good but the fact that the system allows you to leverage your wealth to increase it is probably the most important factor to get to $250B.
Absolutely, the more money you have the more risk you can take. That's fractions-of-a-martingale level money so you can probably chalk up a win before you lose it all. Musk uses the same playbook. Losing is for small fry.
Proverb from my granny to contemplate: the devil always craps on the larger heap.
Right, and the risk aspect is only a second order effect. The main effect applies even when you restrict yourself to low-risk investments: it's simply that the more you have, the more you can invest so the more you make on average. But yeah, higher risk tolerance means you can also aim for higher returns.
His parents invested about $500,000 in today's money in their 50s. At that age, 10% of Americans have a financial net worth (excluding home equity) of over $2 million. People in America invest that kind of money in small businesses all the time. That’s on the low end of what it costs to open a Dunkin Donuts, and half of what it costs to open a McDonalds. The kids of the Indian guy who owns the Dunkin’ Donuts down the street aren’t exactly scions of wealth.
And Bezos's biological dad was a unicyclist, his mom got pregnant with him at 16 and later dropped out of college, and his stepdad was a Cuban refugee who got an education and became an engineer for Exxon. Going from zero to billionaire in two generations actually says something remarkable about our system.
Think about it another way. If the government doled out $500k to fund business ideas, do you think that investment would be available to kids of refugees? Of course not. There would be gatekeeping behind credentials and connections, and it would be open to a lot less than 10% of the population.
> The kids of the Indian guy who owns the Dunkin’ Donuts down the street aren’t exactly scions of wealth.
I don't buy that this is a common scenario. How many of those actually own a franchise and how many of them are drowning in debt trying to pay off the loan?
I’m sorry but the idea that anyone near middle class would make the decision to drop their entire retirement savings on a single high-volatility business in a new product sector like e-commerce is insane.
The average retirement savings at that age is around $500,000 according to Edward Jones. That’s average, not median, which means that a ton of people have a lot less money saved up than that by that age.
The Bezos family had $500k adjusted for inflation in money they could risk and lose 100% on. That money was also in an account the presumably was liquid enough to spend (I.e., I can’t spend my 401k money before retirement age without enduring a massive penalty and tax burden).
I must reiterate that no parent would liquidate their entire 401k for a business investment. Middle class people are not starting McDonald’s franchises. At best they are starting a Subway or a Dunkin with borrowed money, and usually the families that do that are putting the whole extended family in on that investment.
Finally, I will address the way in which you our bootlicking our hyper-capitalist system: you praise the virtues of a system that allows people like Jeff Bezos to make it big while downplaying the wild inequalities in that system caused by under-taxation of people like him.
10% of Americans, over 20 million people, have no health insurance. Why is that okay?
> Going from zero to billionaire in two generations actually says something remarkable about our system.
It does? I mean, sure, it's better than having only the already rich stay rich, but let's not kid ourselves that this is a life outcome that everybody, or even 10% or 1% of the US can shoot for. The vast majority of people stay closer to zero. Who gives a shit that a few people get to win the right-time-right-place lottery?
Every society has elites. If you invoke the government to keep people from being financial elites, then those government positions will become highly coveted and those will be the elites. And in countries where there aren’t many financial elites because the whole country is poor (like India until recently) those government jobs are highly coveted and insanely difficult to break onto.
So it matters a lot where a society’s elites come from. In most societies, entering the elite requires family pedigree, credentials, and connections. If your society is such that simply becoming upper middle class gives your kids a sufficient platform to become a billionaire, that has a huge effect on who makes up the elites. Having elites whose parents were refugees or restaurant owners is hugely different from most countries.
> Going from zero to billionaire in two generations actually says something remarkable about our system.
This data point doesn't distinguish between a system that fairly rewards abilities, and one that works like a lottery. My guess is that the US is in between: it unfairly rewards abilities, and chance plays a large role.
Taking Jeff Bezos as example: 1) he certainly has remarkable abilities but maybe not 1,000,000 times more than the median American, yet he has about 1,000,000 times the wealth; 2) it's plausible that the US population of 350M includes several people with abilities similar to Bezos yet no notable wealth due to various circumstances. Both points suggest an unfair system.
Why are you assuming that “fairness” requires a linear distribution between ability and wealth? A winner-take-all system may be undesirable in many respects, but it’s not necessarily unfair.
Yeah there's no reason it should be a linear function, but it's a moot point anyway until we define what it would mean to have "X times more abilities".
My point is that having tycoons with 1,000,000 times the wealth of the median person is not a fair distribution, no matter which reasonable function you choose.
If you think superficially of "fair" like in a game, then yes a winner-take-all system can be fair. But when talking about socioeconomics, I think fairness goes a bit deeper. For example I would say a society with a lottery that picks one winner and tortures all others is not fair to those who lose (even though it's game-fair).
This reply has very strong "the average human does not eat 10 spiders a day; the average was thrown off by Spiders Georg who eats 10000 spiders a day" energy.
Amazon does not have an exceedingly high profit margin, and my understanding is that a lot of it comes from stuff like AWS, not Amazon deliveries - correct me if I'm wrong here. So I'm not sure that "three amazon deliveries a day" - if this is even common - is why that man is personally rich. Even if it were a big source of revenue, that would go into Amazon's coffers, not necessarily his directly.
Another way to look at this: Even if Amazon is wildly successful, does that mean Jeff Bezos specifically should become filthy rich as a result, instead of all its employees and investors? How should the gains from successful entrepreneurship be distributed?
> why that man is personally rich. Even if it were a big source of revenue, that would go into Amazon's coffers, not necessarily his directly.
Jeff Bezos owns 9% of Amazon. So 9% of the expected value of the money going "into Amazon's coffers" indefinitely into the future is counted as part of his current "wealth." It's not money under his mattress.
Is your argument that people shouldn't be allowed to own 9% of a company that they started?
People should not be allowed to accumulate capital beyond $X, yes. What natural law means they should? Society created the conditions for that person to be so successful; in fact, the person only had the minor part in that success. Once you reach $X, you get a certificate saying you won at life and society is really grateful, and society gets the rest of the rewards while they dedicate their life to philanthropy or torturing kittens or whatever it is they do as a hobby.
> People should not be allowed to accumulate capital beyond $X, yes.
The term "capital" is an abstraction that's not helpful here. The big "wealth" numbers are all about equity ownership in highly valued companies. Bezos owns 9% of Amazon stock. That's why he's "rich." What should happen to that stock? What happens to his voting control over Amazon?
> The term "capital" is an abstraction that's not helpful here
It was not so abstract when Musk came up with 44 billion to buy Twitter... The details are complicated but in the end it's still wealth.
> Bezos owns 9% of Amazon stock. That's why he's "rich." What should happen to that stock? What happens to his voting control over Amazon?
Presumably he would sell the stock to pay the wealth tax (or whatever mechanism is there to limit wealth)?
As for the voting control: when you're down to 9% this ship has sailed hasn't it? Anyway I don't think society has a moral obligation to allow individuals personal control of a trillion dollar company because they founded it (and if society disagrees with me, super-voting shares can be used as Alphabet does).
The problem is people that rich don't own anything. It's all shell corporations and LLCs and money borrowed against those shares (so no need to pay any taxes). But they clearly have access to yacht money. We're not going to write an airtight law in the comments section. We can just ignore paper wealth and ownership stakes for the purposes of wealth redistribution.
The question boils down to a feeling that when the revolution comes, that no one person needs more than, say, $100 million for themselves, or not. Trying to distract the conversation into defining "for themselves" will only prolong your time before the firing squad, comrad.
> Another way to look at this: Even if Amazon is wildly successful, does that mean Jeff Bezos specifically should become filthy rich as a result, instead of all its employees and investors? How should the gains from successful entrepreneurship be distributed?
The answer depends on how should the losses from unsuccessful entrepreneurship be distributed?
Can you be more specific? Suppose I put $1M into developing a business.
For whatever reason, construction hits a snag or revenues are not enough to cover expenses, how would it become “society’s” problem? Do I get made whole by the government giving me $1M, and the government takes posession of the property?
If so, I foresee a lot more opportunities for corruption.
> For whatever reason, construction hits a snag or revenues are not enough to cover expenses, how would it become “society’s” problem?
You declare bankruptcy. Your vendors who extended credit get hosed. Your employees go on unemployment benefits. Each of these costs money, and each of these reduces taxable income.
The aforementioned suggestions are a great way to kill any incentive to take risks and start a new business with one’s savings, further tilting the playing field to SP500 dominance.
This is like asking why are people buying so much stuff from a company that was founded as compiler/language tool seller. How much compiler do they need.
The above would be Microsoft for context. For some reason your comment assumes that what a company was "founded as" should dictate what they do decades later.
Economy growing at 3-5% in the US. Rich people's wealth growing at a far higher rate. Which means the middle class wealth is getting siphoned to the rich. The middle class is getting poorer and we can all see that.
I think we should put this to the test. The working class stops working for a week/month and we'll see how "productive" the rich capitalists really are.
OK that's one thing, but still there are many new billionaires that didn't exist a few decades ago, let alone a few years ago. Why did they become billionaires and the wealth didn't distribute over a much larger group?
And thinking about bubbles, imagine what happens when the GenAI one pops. The wealth some new billionaires had will go up in smoke, their assets will go on sale, and they'll be gobbled up by the old billionaires.
Maybe, I think it definitely happened with millionaires, there are probably many more millionaires these days compared to a few decades ago. Inflation helped too for sure.
But I think still a lot of people would argue the distribution is too unequal.
> Then the next question is why does wealth, in practically all industrious countries seem to distribute disproportionally and not uniformly?
Compound interest, and as (admittedly) an armchair economist I buy into the argument that goes along the lines of:
"when the rate of return on capital (r) is greater than the rate of economic growth (g) over the long term, the result is concentration of wealth".
In my view, r has been greater than g for some time now.
> Then you might ask, if that's true, do you I want to enforce equality, potentially dragging down the economy to mediocracy (for example many stagnating European economies) or maybe accept that current nature does not meet our societal desire for equality.
To me, it is clear that while Europe optimizes for quality of life to a large extent, Americans really drink the coo-laid and enthusiastically optimize for shareholder value. I highly encourage you to give life in Europe a go at some point. I hope you'll return (or stay) also having reached the same perspective.
I'm not American. I did stay for months though in the US (SF, NY) and Europe (Italy, France, Greece, PT, DE, more) at times.
I think for competitive and talented people, US in general offers much more lucrative opportunities as long as you're OK with the US specific drawbacks.
For non-competitive people, living in Europe would probably be a more convenient.
I think the problem though is in the future, both the US and Europe has grave societal and economic issues but from the different angles. Europe lacks economical drive and seems to discourage change on a cultural level. The US on the other hand seems to be an extreme catalyst.
I'm not familiar enough with quantitative data to judge on the compound interest, nevertheless I think in the last few decades we have already been witness on the global level to major changes in wealth: empires like UK have shrank, giants like China have risen. This had been very different a few decades ago and is an anecdote at least that compound interest can only do so much for empires, in the face of major changes.
> One argument could be that maybe entrepreneurial personality traits aren't normally distributed, and unless you find a way change people's personalities in mass, the imbalance in wealth attraction will remain inherent.
Luck always plays the biggest role. Maybe the billionaires would have always been successful in some way, but not be a billionaire or even a millionaire.
Also, your argument sounds like a just-so story designed to support the status quo.
> the imbalance in wealth attraction will remain inherent.
Is is really a good idea to be ruled by the people with the greatest "wealth attraction?"
> Then you might ask, if that's true, do you I want to enforce equality, potentially dragging down the economy to mediocracy (for example many stagnating European economies) or maybe accept that current nature does not meet our societal desire for equality.
Yes, because regardless of anything else, the wealth imbalance has been politically destabilizing. Your comment strikes me as out-of-touch quantitative thinking: making certain easily-measured numbers going up the highest goal, while ignoring other things that are harder to quantify. That's a blind spot shared by a lot of people, especially tech people.
I'm mostly trying to make sense of the world and so far I found out that looking at it as a chaotic thermodynamic-like system makes the most sense.
So in regards to this economic issue, it seems that human personality traits that lead to disproportionate power/influence/money are distributed non-uniformly to an extreme extent.
We can try and moderate it as a system (e.g some forms of democracy, socialism, etc.) to maybe lower the amplitudes, but it would be ignorant to deny that this might be a core part of current human nature. Humans themselves are a specie with disproportionate power & influence compared to other species, so I think it would only make sense if this trait would also apply within the specie.
Now imagine, there'd be some alien government, who'd be like "whoa humans are making way too disproportionate progress compared to the other species, let's tax/prune them so they don't get too much power".
> ... so far I found out that looking at it as a chaotic thermodynamic-like system makes the most sense.
What do you mean, you found that out? And what does that have to do with anything?
> So in regards to this economic issue, it seems that human personality traits that lead to disproportionate power/influence/money are distributed non-uniformly to an extreme extent.
To me, that doesn't sound like an observation, but rather an interpretation. We could apply various epistemological carpet beaters to see what remains. One would be the critique of ideology. A few others can be found in the philosophy of science. It also seems to contradict your reference to thermodynamics. Wouldn't that mean that personality traits don't play a role at all? We don't look at individual particles, and certainly not at their personality traits.
> Humans themselves are a specie with disproportionate power & influence compared to other species, so I think it would only make sense if this trait would also apply within the specie.
I cannot understand this conclusion at all. Why should the structural relationship to other species be reflected within the species itself?
> I cannot understand this conclusion at all. Why should the structural relationship to other species be reflected within the species itself?
It's all an interpretation, never claimed it to be anything beyond a thinking model I like.
> To me, that doesn't sound like an observation, but rather an interpretation. We could apply various epistemological carpet beaters to see what remains. One would be the critique of ideology. A few others can be found in the philosophy of science. It also seems to contradict your reference to thermodynamics. Wouldn't that mean that personality traits don't play a role at all? We don't look at individual particles, and certainly not at their personality traits.
No we don't, but I don't think it's necessarily because we don't want to, but because we often can't. Nevertheless, I think my rationale still applies. For example, if you take a bunch of matter, for example water, you'd find out that the distribution of Deuterium and definitely Tritium is really "unfair". Why only so few particles get to have that extra neutron and others do not?
> I cannot understand this conclusion at all. Why should the structural relationship to other species be reflected within the species itself?
It doesn't necessarily have to but:
1. It seems to have been very favorable trait evolutionally to force your will on other species. I'm no brain nor social expert but it seems to me that in order to stop this trait internally, there would need to be some pretty strong inhibitors to counter that.
2. Regardless of the species claim, you can see the pattern of exceptional individuals with disproportionate influence in many other places in nature: queen bees, pack leaders, and human kings of sorts. in I think practically every culture on earth in recorded history?
I really struggle to think of any mass systems, in human society or nature in which power is not distributed disproportionally to a relatively small portion of individuals.
> never claimed it to be anything beyond a thinking model I like.
Sorry, but if that's your yardstick for acceptable models of thought, then only nonsense can come out of it. No one has any reason to take any of your thoughts seriously if you don't question your own thinking more critically.
> Why only so few particles get to have that extra neutron and others do not?
This has nothing to do with thermodynamics and even less to do with unfairness. It's a completely meaningless analogy. You might as well just flip it around and say that it's good that so few particles have to carry around that annoying extra neutron, or whatever. If you're going to draw any conclusions about humans from this, you might as well read coffee grounds or clouds or animal bones scattered on the forest floor. That's not thinking!
I have people like that in my personal circle. They're not exactly the brightest minds.
Edit: A queen bee is simply fed in a special way during the larval stage. Ultimately, it doesn't matter which larva is selected for this purpose. That said, it is also wrong to imagine her as an actual queen or as the CEO of the bees. She does not rule over the other bees but is simply responsible for laying eggs. If you wanted to, you could see from this example that your thinking does not proceed from premises to conclusions, but rather begins with conclusions and then rather loosely gathers together premises that might fit.
To supplement the thermodynamic reference with a more benevolent interpretation:
What can certainly be done, and what has already been done quite productively, is to transfer the thermodynamic concept of entropy to other areas. The first thing that comes to mind is Shannon's information entropy. But there is also Georgescu-Roegen's bioeconomic entropy, social entropy in the social sciences, and some (rather speculative and perhaps primarily metaphorical) concepts of psychological and psychodynamic entropy.
However, I do not think that if one were to zoom in further in these areas, one would find hard evidence for the worldview that is seeking justification here.
You know that human civilization exists because of all the people putting in work every day who are not motivated just by by money, right? If everyone was billionaire level money obsessed society would cease to work. There is nothing to indicate billionaires are giving us a disproportionate amount of what makes society work, and without working society to host it there is no progress.
> You know that human civilization exists because of all the people putting in work every day who are not motivated just by by money, right?
Where did I say that?
> If everyone was billionaire level money obsessed society would cease to work. There is nothing to indicate billionaires are giving us a disproportionate amount of what makes society work, and without working society to host it there is no progress.
I think if you wouldn't have the crazy risk takers who want the power/influence/money, either other people would need to take the lead on that, or there'd be a lot less advancement and we'd be closer as a society to our ancestors.
I've yet to see mass systems of groups in which work is being done without the leadership and initiative of a small proportion of people. For example, imagine a movement that is not founded by 1 or few people, but instead a company that is founded Day 1 with thousands of people, instantly. I think that's practically impossible without a hypothetical hivemind, but I'd like to be proven wrong!
> So in regards to this economic issue, it seems that human personality traits that lead to disproportionate power/influence/money are distributed non-uniformly to an extreme extent.
It doesn't seem that way to people who look at ALL factors, not just this one that is chosen to justify a sociopathic ideology.
Not to be too glib but my mom would ask counter questions like this:
Why is it that we have to trim out nails when they grow? Why not leave it natural?
Why do we remove the weed in between the pavers in our backyard? Why not let it be natural?
The fact is the world around us needs constant work. Our capitalism is no different. It needs constant pruning or it becomes gluttonous. There was a book I think which said most people involved in illegal drug trafficking are barely getting by, most of the income is soaked up at the top. I don't remember the point the bio was trying to make but it feels like that way for any enterprise these days.
The richest people in the US have reportedly increased their net worth by over 1.5T over the course of the last year or so.
Isn't this basically Entropy?
Why do stars fuse and spread out their energy? Can't they just keep it all in? They are going to blow up/die out eventually, how is this sustainable?
The notion I'm getting is that these forces that drive change are bigger than all of us, and they are inherently unsustainable in the larger scale of things, pretty similar to how solar systems are not really sustainable in a scale much larger than us, but not that is still pretty small in a universal scale.
So for your perspective it might be unsustainable, but for the bigger system what you describe is smaller than a grain of sand.
Or in the absence of other competing systems which can be shown to be more efficient, we could say OK seems like billionaires are part of this ecosystem. If you'd like, similar to how we don't like mosquitos but they are nevertheless an important part of the current ecosystem, whether we like it or not. Though if we ever find a better alternative, they'd definitely be in a hard spot.
US homeowners have increased their net worth like $15 trillion since the start of the pandemic.
Besides, there's this thing called tax incidence and it's not as simple as "tax the billionaires" because it's not clear how that plays out in terms of people's wages or middle class investments.
On the other hand, land value taxes would actually be incident on landowners.
Therefore devaluing the value of the dollar so that those who had basically steady state income (wage earners) have been completely fucked while the lucky ones had their yachts rise with the tide.
Because a tree has better access times than a list, so some amount of hierarchy results in a better performance than unstructured set of individuals. As directing people means more available work force for ones goals, and money represents ability to do something and availability to resources, some people will have more money than others.
I think there's clearly a question of envy which doesn't seem addressed.
I'm not particularly in favour of high taxation, but I think that the argument is a bit more subtle than that. The general point is that "the ultra rich" are able to benefit from a whole host of loopholes which allow them to pay proportionally less than the plebs.
Now, this specific point seems somewhat debatable, judging by the fact that people don't seem to agree; I personally have not looked into the matter to form an opinion.
Maybe our tax code hasn't kept up with the financialization of the economy. In any case, this whole tax increase thing, at least as I see it in France, since to spill over to "regular rich people", as in engineers or similar who "just" have a relatively high salary.
Another issue, which I think is different but is rolled into complaints about rising tax rates is what the state actually does with the money. As in "I'm ok with paying tax, but not to fund this or that thing". In France, specifically, many "public service" offices have closed, having people either travel great distances or fight half-assed computer systems, while, at the same time, the number of public servants (so, cost) has increased.
You could have asked the same question when slavery was legal. Why is slavery not evenly distributed. Social injustice has been the default since the beginning of known history. Social justice is something that has to be fought for.
Look for the Sugarscape model research studies. With uniform equally distributed starting point, fairly unbiased rules, and a set of random early wins, large disparities tend to accumulate over time without active policy to counteract it.
There's many shades of grey between financial laissez faire and enforced equality. This entire "taxes are theft/unnecessary" (and frankly extremist in the neutral definition of the word) thinking is destroying the US politically and socially right now.
Do you not see this? Probably because you don't feel it in your pocket (yet, let's see what happens when the USD crashes. I will feel it too, no doubt.)
There's the belief that the economy can be a mighty tool to improve our lives, but isn't it going pretty much overboard since some time? Is this materialistic growth-at-all-costs ideology really making average US lives better these days?
From the outside the US feels like a runner that is stretching its arm towards the finish line (total automation) while also falling on their ass.
> One argument could be that maybe entrepreneurial personality traits aren't normally distributed
That's not an argument, it's a completely counterfactual assertion ... or rather, the assertion that this is the cause of uneven distribution of wealth.
> Then you might ask, if that's true, do you I want to enforce equality, potentially dragging down the economy to mediocracy (for example many stagnating European economies) or maybe accept that current nature does not meet our societal desire for equality.
But of course it's not true, it's just an attempt to justify a morally bankrupt sociopathic ideology.
Countries with low inequality tend to have strongly progressive taxation systems — Belgium, Sweden, Finland, etc. The billionaire class isn’t a necessity, it’s a failure of morality to overpower the affordances of hyper-growth capitalism.
>Organizing your country with more sustainable growth where income disparities aren't so high means you don't have this problem to this extent.
Sounds like US vs Europe. Having redistributive policies funded by taxes works well until your most productive people flee for a country that doesn't, and you steadily lose ground to competitors economically.
Americans like to act like they've beaten European nations in some kind of battle, but is the purpose of a state not to provide the highest quality of life, safety and health to its citizens? Not try to make the biggest corporations? In which case, even taking the whole of Europe as an average (which you shouldn't), by every metric beyond GDP its ahead.
>but is the purpose of a state not to provide the highest quality of life, safety and health to its citizens?
It's going to be hard to provide all of that when you don't have the money for it (eg. fiscal crisis in France right now), or if you get invaded by your neighbor (or any other competitor) eclipses you economically and then uses that to subjugate you. The european model of reaping the peace dividend and using it to fund a more generous welfare state worked from 1990s to 2010s, but is breaking down with the rise of china and russia, and is further exacerbated by sluggish growth and the demographic/pension crisis.
This is the actual issue, which we often avoid talking about because it's grim. Like, health care is expensive, old people health care is really expensive, and the proportion of old people in many Western countries is increasing over time (because of a fall in birth rates). I believe the FT had a good article about this recently, where they showed that the vast majority of extra spending from government was on old people.
Now, clearly, society doesn't want to just shoot old people when they get sick, but I'm not sure how taxation is gonna look as the proportion of old people increases. Obviously increasing retirement ages helps here, but that's mostly just a massive tax on blue collar workers, who are much less likely to be able to continue working into their 70s, whereas for many cubicle jockeys, it's a lot more plausible.
Everyone has their own objectives for life, but I actually don't think that the purpose of a state is to provide the instantaneous highest quality of life, safety and health to its citizens. Some might argue that it is to provide those things not at a sampled time but over a duration, but if so which generation should experience that? And if optimized over generations then surely some people must lose so that future others must gain, or the future others must lose to that the present ones may gain.
Personally, I think a higher goal for the state is to provide a substrate of sufficient physical safety, law and order, and infrastructure so that its citizens may have the ability to pursue their aspirations. I think human thriving is very important. And I want the ability to try at a ridiculous thing and achieve commensurate reward. In many ways, I don't even want that for me. I want that for others. When I see someone take a crack at something that most thought impossible and make it happen, I love it.
It isn't that those of us who have this opinion are temporarily embarrassed billionaires. It's that we like that someone took a crack at something absurd and became billionaires for it. People who don't get it always say these things out of misunderstanding: "Why do the poor in the US vote so often against their own interests?". The obvious answer is "because they are principled and not purely self-interested".
The thing is that Europe doesn't have much redistribute policies. Everyone at around lower rank manager or middle developer are landing in the highest tax bracket in most of the countries, and pay as much tax as rich people. And almost every tax raise is usually targeted at these barely middle-class people.
Taxing billionaires isn't "necessary to raise enough tax revenue." Total personal income in the U.S. is 26 trillion annually: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/personal-income. For the most part, that's real money that reflects goods and services in the real economy.
The increase in wealth of billionaires in 2025 was $1.5 trillion: https://americansfortaxfairness.org/billionaires-1-5-trillio... Most of that isn't even real money--it's people betting on AI. (As an aside, is the government going to give huge tax refunds when the AI bubble bursts and all that "wealth" disappears?)
If the U.S. just taxed people the way they do in Germany we could raise trillions in revenue without resorting to tricks like one-time wealth taxes. The focus is on billionaires because Americans want a German-style welfare state without German-style taxes on the middle and upper middle class.
Countries in which the income disparities ARE so high are also the ones where the "poor" are the richest. They just feel poor in comparison not in absolute terms.
70K a year is poor in California, but top 1% rich in almost any country in the world.
Low income disparities are countries like Albania, Afghanistan, Armenia to name the first three with below 30 GINI income.
This is an anomaly and left over from the time when middle class was growing after the 2nd world war. We (Western countries) are dismantling all the back stops and the process will reverse and move all the wealth to the few rich people in the capital class. When this process is complete the poverty levels in the west will equal those of the countries you mentioned, Afghanistan etc.
The USA and UK are leading the process since they started to pursue this goal aggressively during the 80s with Reaganism and Thatcherism.
and you’re claiming the process still isn’t complete more than 40 years later? shouldn't the wealth gap between the poor in the US vs the poor in Afghanistan be starting to get smaller if your argument is correct?
And this is exactly why nominal $ amount comparisons are completely pointless. Someone who makes $70k in southern or eastern Europe is living like a king (or living at least good life anywhere in Europe) while someone making $70k in expensive parts of California is going to struggle.
Wealth is equal to your share of the overall resources, $ amounts are just an abstraction.
The "small government" conservatives really showed their true faces in 2025 and 2026. Anyone espousing these ideas will not be taken seriously by me going forward.
Do you hear how this reads? It reads like you're not going to take warnings about the dangers of government power seriously because the people espousing them are trying to use government power dangerously themselves.
If you can't see the irony in that, that their warnings are twice as important if the pool of potential abusers if government power is twice as big, then nobody's really losing anything when you opt out of engaging these people.
> Anyone espousing these ideas will not be taken seriously by me going forward.
Just because they're hypocrites does not make them wrong. Remember it was the GOP that passed the PATRIOT Act, and people were warning about that from the very beginning.
Though they've been arguing in bad faith on any number of topics (and have been for decades):
The hypocrisy of the conservatives aside, the Democrats also end up doing nothing meaningful to thwart any of it when they are in power. The higher ranks of Democrats are almost as conservative as the Republicans. Palantir is not a post-2024 phenomenon. The data was always collected. They are just being brazen now.
Yes but at least in places like Venezuela and Philippines it can be bought cheap enough the common man might be able to access it.
It's almost worse in the USA because the corruption is only accessible to those in quasi-oligarchical roles. There's some point at which increased corruption actually becomes more egalitarian (though obviously, not as egalitarian as zero corruption).
I don't know why this is down voted. It's a very valid point.
In countries where the police and government officials can be bought for pocket change by the middle class, the masses have relatively more power vs the elite who control the central government.
It’s a stupid point that ignores how corruption actually works, particularly when someone thinks being able to bribe the local police means an ordinary person in Venezuela has more power than an average American.
It's not. I'm not familiar with Venezuela, but here in SE Asia if I want to open a small business say a bar along the beach, I just pay off the local police with a small cut of my profits. Where I grew up in the US, it would either be impossible or takes years and millions of dollars to get all the approvals.
That's a real-world difference that gives the middle class more freedom to start a business that is really only feasible for the wealthy in the US.
> I just pay off the local police with a small cut of my profits. Where I grew up in the US, it would either be impossible or takes years and millions of dollars to get all the approvals
You’re comparing permitting processes. That’s orthogonal to corruption. You can set up a beach bar in most of America without a permit and without getting cited for months on end, too, and plenty of people do it. (The pot-brownie sellers in Dolores Park aren’t licensed.)
Am I in the Truman show? I don’t think AI has generated even 1% of the code that I run in prod, nor does anyone I respect. Heavily inspired by AI examples, heavily assisted by AI during research sure. Who are these devs that are seeing such great success vibecoding? Vibecoding in prod seems irresponsible at best
It's all over the place depending on the person or domain. If you are building a brand new frontend, you can generate quite a lot. If you are working on an existing backend where reliability and quality are critical, it's easier to just do yourself. Maybe having LLMs writing the unit tests on the code you've already verified working.
> Who are these devs that are seeing such great success vibecoding? Vibecoding in prod seems irresponsible at best
AI written code != vibecoding. I think anyone who believes they are the same is truly in trouble of being left behind as AI assisted development continues to take hold. There's plenty of space between "Claude build me Facebook" and "I write all my code by hand"
I was talking to a product manager a couple weeks ago about this. His response: most managers have been vibecoding for long time. They've just been using engineers instead of LLMs.
Having done both, right now I prefer vibe coding with good engineers. Way less handholding. For non-technical managers, outside of prototyping vibe coding produces terrible results
FAANG here (service oriented arch, distributed systems) and id say probably 20+ percent of code written on my team is by an LLM. it's great for frontends, works well with test generation, or following an existing paradigm.
I think a lot of people wrote it off initially as it was low quality. But gemini 3 pro or sonnet 4.5 saves me a ton of time at work these days.
Perfect? Absolutely not. Good enough for tons of run of the mill boilerplate tasks? Without question.
> probably 20+ percent of code written on my team is by an LLM. it's great for frontends
Frontend has always been shitshow since JS dynamic web UIs invented. With it and CSS no one cares what runs page and how many Mb it takes to show one button.
But regarding the backend, the vibecoding still rare, and we are still lucky it is like that, and there was no train crush because of it. Yet.
Backend has always been easier than frontend. AI has made backend absolutely trivial, the code only has to work on one type of machine in one environment. If you think it's rare or will remain rare you're just not being exposed to it, because it's on the backend.
No surprise at all and I'd challenge you to find any backend task that LLMs don't improve working on as much they do frontend. And ignoring that the parent comment here is just ignorant since they're talking about the web like it's still 2002. I've worked professionally at every possible layer here and unless you are literally at the leading edge, SOTA, laying track as you go, backend is dramatically easier than anything that has to run in front of users. You can tolerate latency, delays and failures on the backend that real users will riot about if it happens in front of them. The frontend performance envelope starts where the backend leaves off. It does not matter in the slightest how fast your cluster of beefy identical colocated machines does anything at all if it takes more than 100ms to do anything that the user directly cares about, on their shitty browser on a shitty machine on tethered to their phone in the mountains, and the difference is trivially measurable by people who don't work in our field, so the bar is higher.
Honestly, I am also at a faang working on a tier 0 distributed system in infra and the amount of AI generated code that is shipped on this service is probably like 40%+ at this point.
I'm not surprised at all here, last time I worked in a FAANG there was an enormous amount of boilerplate (e.g. Spring), and it almost makes me weep for lost time to think how easy some of that would be now.
It’s not just boilerplate. This is a low level C++ service where latency and performance is critical (don’t want to get into too much detail since I’ll dox myself). I used to think the same thing as you: “Surely my job is safe because this system is very complex”. I used to think this would just replace front end engineers who write boilerplate react code. 95% of our codebase is not boilerplate. AI has found optimizations in how we store items, AI has alerted us to production issues (with some degree of accuracy, of course). I worry that traditional software engineering as we know it will disappear and these hybrid AI jobs will be what’s left.
I think you’re onto something. Frontend tends to not actually solve problems, rather it’s mostly hiding and showing parts of a page. Sometimes frontend makes something possible that wasn’t possible before, and sometimes the frontend is the product, but usually the frontend is an optimization that makes something more efficient, and the problem is being solved on the backend.
It’s been interesting to observe when people rave about AI or want to show you the thing they built, to stop and notice what’s at stake. I’m finding more and more, the more manic someone comes across about AI, the lower the stakes of whatever they made.
Spoken like someone deeply unfamiliar with the problem domain since like 2005, sorry. It's an entirely different class of problems on the front end, most of them dealing with making users happy and comfortable, which is much more challenging than any of the rote byte pushing happening on the backend nowadays.
Is it, though? That sounds very subjective, and from what I can tell 'enshittification' is a popular user term for the result, so I'm not sure it's going that great.
If you search Google Trends for enshittification, half the results contain Doctorow as well [0]. Normal people have no idea who that is. And that's just Google, which everyone on HN hates to the point of vibrating angrily because there isn't an obvious part of the name to replace derogatorily with a dollar sign. Nobody uses this term outside of Hacker News, and even on HN it's code for "this site doesn't work when I disable Javascript", which is not a real requirement real customers have.
User experience does involve a lot of subjectivity [1] and that's part of what makes it hard. You have to satisfy the computer and the person in front of it, and their wants are often at odds with each other. You have to make them both happy at 60 FPS minimum.
I think much of the rot in FAANG is more organizational than about LLMs. They got a lot bigger, headcount-wise, in 2020-2023.
Ultimately I doubt LLMs have much of an impact on code quality either way compared to the increased coordination costs, increased politics, and the increase of new commercial objectives (generating ads and services revenue in new places). None of those things are good for product quality.
That also probably means that LLMs aren't going to make this better, if the problem is organizational and commercial in the first place.
Does great for front ends mean considerate A11Y? In the projects I've looked over, that's almost never the case and the A11Y implementation is hardly worthy of being called prototype, much less production. Mock up seems to be the best label. I'll bet you think because the surface looks right that runs down to the roots so you call it good at front ends. This is the problem with LLMs, they do not do the hard work and they teach people that the hard work they cannot do is fine left undone or partially done and the more people "program" like this the worse the situation gets for real human beings trying to live in a world dominated by software.
For the last 2 or 3 months we made a commitment as a team to go all in on claude code, and have been sharing prompts, skills, etc, and documented all of our projects and at this point, claude is writing a _large_ percentage of our code. Probably upwards of 70 or 80%. It's also been updating our jira tickets and github PRs, which is probably even more useful than writing the code.
Our test coverage has improved dramatically, our documentation has gotten better, our pace of development has gone up. There is also a _big_ difference between the quality of the end product between junior and senior devs on the team.
Junior devs tend to be just like "look at this ticket and write the code."
Senior devs are more like: Okay, can you read the ticket, try to explain to to me in your own words, let's refine the description, can you propose a solution -- ugh that's awful, what if we did this instead.
You would think you would not save a lot of time that way, but even spending an _hour_ trying to direct claude to write the code correctly is less than the 5-6 hours it would take to write it yourself for most issues, with more tests and better documentation when you are finished.
When you first start using claude code, it feels like you are spending more time to get worse work out of it, but once you sort of build up the documentation/skills/tools it needs to be successful, it starts to pay dividends. Last week, I didn't open an IDE _once_ and I committed several thousands lines of code across 2 or 3 different internal projects. A lot of that was a major refactor (smaller files, smaller function sizes, making things more DRY) that I had been putting off for months.
Claude itself made a huge list of suggestions, which I knocked back to about 8 or 10, it opened a tracking issue in jira with small, tractable subtasks, then started knocking out one at a time, each of them being a fairly reviewable PR, with lots of test coverage (the tests had been built out over the previous several months of coding with cursor and claude that sort of mandated them to stop them from breaking functionality), etc.
I had a coworker and chatgpt estimate how long the issue would take if they had to do it without AI. The coworker looked at the code base and said "two weeks". Both claude and chat GPT estimate somewhere in the 6-8 weeks range (which I thought was a wild over estimate, even without AI). Claude code knocked the whole thing out in 8 hours.
If you work on highly repetitive areas like web programming, I can clearly see why they're using LLMs. If you're in a more niche area, then it gets harder to use LLM all the time.
There is a nice medium between full-on vibe coding and doing it yourself by hand. Coding agents can be very effective on established codebases, and nobody is forcing you to push without reviewing.
How do you manage your containers in podman declaratively?
I tried to substitute docker-compose with Podman and Quadlets on a test server the other day, but was shocked how badly described the overall concept is. Most materials I found glimpsed through ability to run it as root/user and how different that is in configuration, and repeated the same 4-6 commands mantra.
Spent a few hours on it and just... failed to run a single container. systemctl never noticed my qualdet definitions, even if podman considered my .container file registered.
This has also been my experience, I'm used to using compose everywhere. I like the declarative file - tried podman and I found the documentation around the concept so scarce and all related to running things as non-root instead of telling me how my docker-compose becomes podman-compose. Still using docker everywhere because of that. Docker swarm mode has also worked wonders as an evolution to my compose files.
I know podman-compose, have some homelab services running on it for a few years, but honestly found multiple ones that failed. It's far from drop-in replacement.
Podman supports Compose files, so there's that. I've only glimpsed at Quadlets and I agree they seem very esoteric, especially if you're not very well versed in systemd service definitions.
The podman kube support? It provides similar functionality as docker-compose, using a yaml file which is a subset of the Kubernetes pod definition syntax.
Then you can just create a few line systemd unit definition, and it integrates as a normal systemd unit, with logs visible via journalctl etc.
> Note: The kube commands in podman focus on simplifying the process of moving containers from podman to a Kubernetes environment and from a Kubernetes environment back to podman.
I'll give it a try, but I'm starting to understand why there is so little use of podman among amateurs.
Personally, I am not interested in kubernetes, just podman for single-node use case. What the kube YAML does for this use case is provide a way to declare a multi-container application.
The podman documentation pages I have found most helpful for this use case are podman-kube-generate (generate kube YAML from an already running pod), podman-kube-play (run the kube manually) and podman-systemd.unit (run the kube as a service).
Edit: I should also mention that there are pod units (which don't require the use of kube YAML) but I skipped over them because they do not support podmans auto-update feature.
Yeah I think Quadlet just has bad docs. They document the whole API but iirc there is no: ok this is the hello world for running cowsay as a systemd unit
quadlets fully depend on systemd doing its work. So, assuming you are running rootless, if you change your quadlets, you will need
systemctl --user daemon-reload
to let systemd ingest the changes. And, if you have configured to start your container on boot, then still you have to start the container by hand, as you typically won't reboot during development. If you have multiple containers, it might be easiest to have them in one pod, so you only need to start the pod.
I agree that the documentation needs a good tutorial to show the complete concept as a starting point. There are multiple ones though on the internet.
The biggest problem with the `systemctl daemon-reload (--user)` workflow to register quadlets with systemd is it hides any generation errors in journald instead of giving immediate feedback. It's a real pain in the ass, and I say this from a place of love.
Quadlets are just a systemd generator: all `daemon-reload` is doing is running `podman-system-generator` which looks at the Quadlet files and turns them into systemd unit files with a big honking `podman run --rm --blah container:tag` as the `ExecStart` property. There's nothing else to it, no daemons or what not
If you ever feel like bothering to give it another shot check journalctl to see if there's any generator errors. Or run the generator directly: on my OpenSUSE box it's at `/usr/lib/systemd/system-generators/podman-system-generator` , Run it with `--dry-run` to just output to stdout and `--user` to get user quadlets.
> What is the edge that docker provides these days?
hub.docker.com mainly, the centralized docker registry. A bit like Github, there are plenty of alternatives. But that's where you find most people pushing their containers.
And then there is Docker Desktop which a lot of users seem to like.
I switched to colima myself recently (on a mac). I think people overthink all this stuff a bit. Colima doesn't have a UI; but that's fine for me. I mainly use it to run stuff from the command line or from scripts. I wasn't using the Docker Desktop UI very much either.
Colima is a simple wrapper around Lima, which is a simple wrapper around qemu or Apple's virtualization layer. The resulting vm runs a simple Linux distribution with some file mounts and network tunneling to give you a similar experience as Docker Desktop. Which does exactly the same thing in the end of course.
Linux runs containers just fine. The main thing you need for containerization is a Linux kernel. People have actually hacked together docker alternatives with just bash and namespaces. I used a plain qemu vm for a while with the docker socket pointing to an ssh tunnel on my mac. Works amazingly well but it has some limitations. Colima is easier to manage.
People have mentioned several of the other alternatives already. They all can work with the same command line tooling. If you need a UI, colima is probably too barebones. But otherwise, things like IDEs and other tools work (e.g. lazydocker, vs code, intellij, etc.) just fine with it. So the added value of extra UI is limited to me at least.
I think the container runtime inside the vm (podman, containerd, whatever) is mostly not that relevant for developers. It's a bit of an implementation detail. As long as docker and docker compose work on the command line, I'm happy.
Enterprise support and Docker Desktop makes it nearly seamless to get set up using containers. I've tried Rancher/podman/buildah and the experience introduced too much friction for me without being on a Linux system.
I'll add that needing to be on the "right" Linux system is another strike against Podman. Last I checked if I wasn't on a RedHat derivative I was in the wilderness.
Huh. I tried docker. Didn’t like the odor of enshittification, and so switched to podman (desktop). I use it on macOS, and deploy on Ubuntu. It’s been smooth sailing.
I found the signal to noise ratio better in Podland. As a newb to docker space, I was overwhelmed with should I swarm, should I compose, what’s this register my thing? And people are freaking about root stuff. I’m sure I still only use and understand about 10% of the pod(man) space, buts way better than how I felt in the docker space.
I miss when software engineering put a high value on simplicity.
Yeah I was pretty hard on podman in that comment but the truth is I use it over docker wherever I can. I have a mixed environment at home but settled on RedHat for the home server and everything seems totally ok. I really like quadlets, and the ability to go rootless is a big load off my mind to be honest. I do wish they'd package it for other distros though. It would save some headaches.
Podman is in Debian and has been for a while (and so will eventually propagate to all its derivatives). I would presume Arch and SUSE have it, not sure about Gentoo, what other host distros are missing?
Given the valuation of these companies the upside of "just lieing" is unfortunately high.
For example taking a step back, it's crazy that people accept the idea of "AGI" (which drives the valuation partially) at face value without any evidence.
I would be shocked if there was any accountability though.
I have written a lot of Zig comptime code and ended up finding the opposite. In C++ I find I have to bend over backward to get what I want done, often resulting in insane compile times. I've used metaprogramming libraries like Boost Hana before to have some more ergonomics, but even that I would consider inferior to comptime.
Out of curiosity, do you happen to have any examples of what you describe, where C++ is more powerful and expressive than Zig?
reply