jrmurad

Trumid | Front End React/Redux Developer | Full-Time | REMOTE or ONSITE in New York, NY | $120-150k

We’re a Wall Street startup founded in 2014 and backed by Peter Thiel and George Soros, seeking an experienced React developer. Our institutional credit trading platform has a Scala microservices architecture with multiple Electron-based frontend applications.

The UI team currently consists of 4 developers in South Florida, Pittsburg, Brooklyn, and Oregon. There is an expectation of working New York business hours.

https://stackoverflow.com/jobs/193804/front-end-engineer-tru...

We are also looking to fill a React+Node Full Stack position.

Please apply through Stack or email [email protected]

Sorry, I'm not an economist but I'm not seeing a connection. It seems like you just may not like the idea of capitalism and are trying to connect it to something else which you consider to be bad.

Turkmenistan's recent history is as a (Soviet) socialist republic and it ranks very, very low on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom. I'd need further convincing that this practice is reflective of a culture which embraces capitalistic ideals like free markets and voluntary exchange.

What definition of "capitalism" are you using to refer to this as a "capitalist endeavor"? The "return on investment" (as you put it) aspect? Wouldn't, say, a communist make similar justifications? For example: "we provided your education as a child so you'll abide by our directives as an adult."

> the Chinese never had a Locke, or a Rousseau, or a Hobbes

How about Lao-Tzu? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laozi

If a politician promises to take ALL of the rich people's money and give it to me, would I be voting "against my own interests" if I thought that was a stupid idea which would result in more problems for myself and others? Adjust "ALL" to some other high percentage and it's the same idea.

I suppose I should expect this from the NYT but they really managed to spin this one.

They bemoan that "the rich" "save" money from the deduction. Isn't it relevant that in order to get a significant discount on taxes, they'd have to be taxed a much larger amount too?

Furthermore, an home-owning couple doesn't realize a single dollar of benefit until after the first $12,600 because of the standard deduction. A renting couple gets all $12,600 for free PLUS they benefit from lower rent because their landlord can deduct not only their own interest and property taxes but other expenses which an occupying homeowner could not (association fees, repairs, etc).

I took NYT's examples and plugged them into the tax calculator to see how much they are paying, including the itemized deductions for the wealthier family:

Asare: $7680 per month plus property taxes (assuming 1.5% in Massachusetts, that's another $831 monthly): https://smartasset.com/taxes/income-taxes#CUgaT4sugl

Diaz: $357 per month: https://smartasset.com/taxes/income-taxes#XkDyAkz2OK [also note the $0 in federal income taxes which the NYT article is focused on, rather than State policy]

Unless one supposes Asare's family is using 20+ times more shared resources than Diaz's, one could come up with a different notion of who the beneficiaries of tax policy may be.

> Right because GE builds roads and funds public schools.

I'm going to assume sarcasm so: http://archive.fortune.com/2008/06/30/news/companies/ge_phil...

https://www.google.com/search?q=general+electric+charitable+...

Wouldn't many such shareholders be Americans as well? Americans who could do something more productive with these payouts than the government might with taxes?

(Non-American shareholders could similarly reinvest these payouts in things which improve the global economy and, by extension, the livelihoods of Americans.)

That's true. I didn't look into how exactly Swedish rates are computed. A 25% effective rate sounded about right to me for a single-filer US salary in that range in most states which have income taxes on top of the federal+FICA. A Nordic country having 10+% higher effective rates likewise seemed reasonable but I certainly don't know for sure.

Everyone throwing around "free" healthcare as a valid explanation for this wage gap needs to account for taxation levels too.

using estimates via Google:

"average programmer salary usa" -> $84,360

"average programmer salary in sweden" -> $54,264

According to http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/10/focus-4, average effective taxes in the USA (including social security) are 25%... but 35% in Sweden. Even if those particular numbers are off, the point is that higher taxes may further expand the gap with lower pre-tax foreign salaries.

So the Swede keeps $35k and gets state-sponsored healthcare. The American keeps $63k and probably has decent health coverage from his employer. I'm not sure about this but I suspect that the American can use a fraction of that $28,000 difference to upgrade the health insurance to Swedish levels or better.

(There are also smaller but still significant expenses like housing, affected by property taxes, and consumption taxes like New York City's 8.875% relatively-high-for-the-USA sales tax vs Sweden's 25% VAT.)

Because "make things the cheapest" implies:

(a) more people having access to more, better products for cheaper

(b) the people making those things ipso facto prefer to be doing those jobs over alternatives

(c) if other people were previously making similar things less efficiently, they are now freed up to do something else

Yes, it may be "easier" for the ACLU to abuse/"reinterpret" the Constitution rather than work to amend it or work within its strict framework... but doing so makes things worse for more people in the longterm.

States' Rights limit the Federal Government from being so powerful that it can more easily violate civil rights... a bigger picture which ACLU should take into account.

Likewise, "legislating from the bench" may have protected some rights of individuals... but, far more often, it has "enshrined", as you say, new Federal powers at the cost of individual liberties.

I agree that "a good argument" can be made about some of them but it appears to me that ACLU always goes "left" with such nuanced issues. If I knew of examples of them going "right" to balance things out, I'd see them differently.

For example, I tried to find out if they took a position in Kelo v City of New London to defend property rights but my searches came up empty.

Some "left-leaning" stances they take where I'm hard-pressed to see how they are defending civil rights, if not outright violating those of one party for the benefit of another:

affirmative action: https://www.aclu.org/issues/racial-justice/affirmative-actio...

voter id (are all the other countries that have this violating their citizens' civil rights?): https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-...

religious liberty (an employer engages in voluntary exchange... not much of a stretch to see it as a violation of rights to force them to pay for something which they consider blasphemous): https://action.aclu.org/secure/your-boss-has-no-business-you...

abortion (Roe v Wade federal overreach vs States' Rights... this and other issues like marijuana laws can be left to the States but "leftists" generally prefer a stronger central government over States as "laboratories of democracy"): https://www.aclu.org/issues/reproductive-freedom/abortion

ACA/"Obamacare": I couldn't find anything about their position on this issue but, if they were only defending civil rights rather than also being a "left-leaning political organization", I think they'd actively oppose forcing people to pay corporations for products they don't want.

Electronifie | New York, NY | Full-Time | Onsite | http://www.electronifie.com/

Position: Full-Stack JavaScript Engineer

Stack: Node, Meteor, React, RabbitMQ, MongoDB, Redis, Python

Salary: $125-175k + equity

Benefits: full heath/dental/vision coverage, 4 weeks vacation

Hours: flexible hours with good work-life balance, typical day from 10am-6pm

Team: we are a 20+ person company with 5 engineers

Electronifie has launched a corporate bond trading platform using a distributed microservice-oriented architecture with CQRS. We are seeking an experienced software engineer to help us continue to develop in response to user feedback.

Check out one of our conference presentations to learn more about our system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_VHWQa1k0k

Please submit a professional statement, LinkedIn profile or resume to [email protected] to apply.

I'm not sure about this but my guess is that a man who refuses to abide by an establishment's rule of "no men in the women's showers" would be asked to leave. If he does not leave, he could be arrested for trespassing.

But given direction these new laws are taking, I'm further guessing that the Police should refuse to remove the man and instead arrest the proprietor for discriminating against this man based on his protected status of identifying as a woman?

You're not taking into account that this "Issuer" claims some right to decide (by force, obviously) who can do business in the first place.

So if some entrepreneurial lady begins, say, arranging flowers or braiding hair... maybe she gets forced out of business for not having a license. Or maybe she does get a license but it is revoked for some arbitrary reason like the Issuer decides she's a "parasite" because she doesn't employ "enough" people. Either way, force is being used against her.

You earlier referred to Business as a potential "parasite". Sounds like you are clarifying that you hope such a parasite will starve and wither away. Which is fine. Others might advocate taking proactive and violent measures to kill something which they deem to be parasitic.

"un-construct it... drag it out behind the shed and shoot it."

Can you "un-construct" this newspeak for us? It sounds like you're advocating that you or some other force besides free and voluntary trade should literally shut down private businesses, possibly beating and robbing their owners in the process (as has been done historically)?

Because there's some formula for determining "social value" which has "number of employees" as a factor?

In case this is not obvious to you... to be entitled to employment (or anything) means someone must provide it. If nobody is voluntarily hiring a man, you would force someone to hire him because this man is entitled to employment?

How would you feel if I told you that there's someone I know in need of employment and YOU must hire him? Oh, and if you don't, I'll fine you or lock you up.

Assuming it counts as a "smart watch", I have one of these: https://www.martianwatches.com/notifier/

$60 when I bought it, now $30. Charge lasts a week. Customizable vibration patterns and text for different kinds of notifications from my phone. It works fine as a watch even when the rechargeable battery is dead. It has a normal clock face so it's always on and visible from all angles. It doesn't look weird or bulky on my small wrist. I'm less likely to miss or ignore calls/texts/email etc when the phone is in my pocket.

I don't know why this watch is not more popular or why there aren't more manufacturers making similar devices.

> I believe from all I have read about Picasso > None of the artists I buy are producing art just for the money and copyright plays no role

You seem to be presuming to know the motivations of every artist to have existed based on your personal experience. Is it so inconceivable to you that there may be someone who, let's say, is considering writing a book, wouldn't at all be motivated by how much money he could earn in return for the investment of his time? And take into account the fact that he could potentially sell the rights for considerably more, the longer copyright guarantees exclusive rights to the owner?

> not an unprovable absolute claim that Picasso has not produced any artwork since he has died

That is not what you originally said. You said:

> Not one new artwork is produced by still allowing copyright on Picasso's artwork.

I pointed out that the same copyright terms which apply to Picasso's works may motivate some artist, somewhere, to create "one new artwork" which he wouldn't have otherwise.

> I have yet to meet an artist

You went from an unprovable absolute claim to providing anecdotal evidence. I'm not saying you're wrong... just that what you've said so far doesn't convince me that "copyright should not be effectively forever" or that "50 years after they are dead" is "effectively forever".

This is by no means my area of expertise, but I'll give you an (probably unoriginal) example. Let's say an artist creates something at age 30. He could use some extra money at age 70. Wouldn't he be able to sell the rights for more to someone who the law will allow to retain those rights for more years after this artist has died?

> Not one new artwork is produced by still allowing copyright on Picasso's artwork.

That's quite a claim. It's conceivable that someone today considering whether to devote time to producing some work of art, rather than pursing another endeavor, would make a different choice depending on how many years he might expect that he and his heirs would have exclusive rights to it.

For some of the couples, yes. Some more might result from corruption or fraud (e.g. "I'll make sure my colleague processes your paperwork... he'll make sure you get accepted")

Or, less cynically, some could be because it's easier for spouses of someone who is in the bureaucratic system to navigate/utilize it.

Most interesting connection I saw: "Eligibility Interviewers, Government Programs" <-> "Unemployed, with no work experience in last 5 years"

>> Isn't investing in bonds putting money to work in the economy?

> Bonds are government debt ...

Could be referring to corporate bonds.

> money equals power

If (legitimately earned) money is how society compensates people for providing things we value, why wouldn't influence (what you call "power"?) come along with it?

If you are concerned about "power" being used to violate the rights of people without it, there are systems of law which criminalize such acts without preventing individuals from earning more money (i.e. possibly expanding the "wealth gap").

> when he calls all Mexican border crossers rapists, he couldn't be more specific.

I'm very much opposed to Trump's candidacy but I'm also opposed to making up things people didn't say in order to attack them.

Correct me if he said something I'm unaware of but I suspect you're referring to this quote:

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best... They’re sending people that have lots of problems... They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

Clumsily stated, for sure. But not even remotely saying that "all Mexican border crossers are rapists". You are concocting that specificity yourself. Perhaps demonstrating Scott Adams' point about vagueness?