HN user

flurben

122 karma
Posts0
Comments82
View on HN
No posts found.

I used to think the same thing, until recently.

Where I live (NC, USA) there was a big issue where commercial property owners have been able to reduce their property tax assessments, not on the basis of 'comparable sales' (like everyone else), but on the basis of the income derived from the property.

I can't say how widespread this practice actually is, but it's not unheard of. Apparently property tax rules are going to vary widely by jurisdiction, which country / which state or province / etc.

I once had a startup fire me after only 6 weeks, for performance reasons, which were purely a fabrication. I'm not sure if that counts.

It was not a good experience for me, but I did not feel like it had any long term consequences.

A) This headline is flat wrong. Productivity is not at its lowest level in 40 years.

B) What they probably meant to say instead is that the US saw the largest monthly decline in productivity in 40 years. There is a very big difference.

C) Month-over-month productivity changes are just statistical noise, too short term to matter.

the reason your figures aren't comparable is because the U.S. figures being used :

a. Are not incomes for just a single-wage earner, they include the combined income for a household (of 2.53 people on average)

b. Are referred to in pre-tax figures, not post-tax.

c. Are not just wage income, but include non-wage income like dividends, capital gains, small business income, fed/state/local government transfers, etc.

d. Are using the median, not the average (mean).

Modern societies are not capital constrained, so capital formation is superfluous. The world is awash in excess capital among the rich, so providing government subsidies to facilitate further capital formation among the rich will not improve living standards.

What you're describing is the failed mentality of the early 1980's : the idea that the wealthy are "better" at capital allocation than everyone else. What it leads to is not some utopia, but simply bigger yachts, and more expensive sports teams, and more expensive land, while the human capital of the poor goes neglected and untapped.

What does the most good for living standards is the government investing in humans and households without capital. More broadly distributed capital, in other words.

I bought from carvana 2 years ago because they had:

A. Lower interest rates than the local credit union or the banks, and

B. Better prices on the vehicle I wanted than anyone else in the area.

Eliminate minimum requirements on parking and restrictions on height. Make demolitions easier. Eliminate the neighbors ability to stop any project that they don't like. Reduce the number of permits required, reduce the permit fees, reduce the time it takes to issue a permit.

In the case of San Francisco, they also need a centralized, online planning/permits database. They are still doing things on paper, and they've got a backlog of thousands of permits. It can take years and hundreds of thousands of dollars simply to navigate the permitting process.

Government developer roles can be sort of like this, it just depends on the details.

The general idea is that you're expected to fulfill a fixed set of responsibilities, which might be challenging for the first year or so. But as time rolls on, a decent employee can usually automate those things.

Typically you're just ignored, no one knows what you do except your boss. If you try to expand outside of the original scope of job duties, you'll be seen as a troublemaker.

And there's rarely any possibility of advancement, since government never promotes developers to the executive level, and advancement within the 'technology group' is usually predicated on your history of procurement, budgeting, and personnel management.

The difficult bit is getting that remote job, but hopefully that's changing due to COVID.

Bitcoin Is Time 5 years ago

ok. it seems our differences here are more in definitions and semantics

I interpret the phrase 'left to their own devices' to mean that there is no central bank and therefore reserves are as a concept are null and void, which then also nullify the concept of a federal funds rate, which would upend the concept of the federal funds rate being 'the market rate' in the first place.

I'll take your word for it about the mechanics of what happens to inter-bank rates under different reserve mechanisms, perhaps they would be driven to zero for the reasons you outlined.

However I'm unclear on what the macroeconomic ramifications would be of letting a small group of banks dictate the federal funds rate; I believe the purpose of this system is to achieve a congressional directive regarding price stability and labor utilization.

Bitcoin Is Time 5 years ago

If left to its own devices the market rate would be driven down towards zero.

How do you figure?