jpmcglone

Sometimes more people in the kitchen is worse

I see no issue here. Business feels threatened and neutralizes threat.

There's nothing wrong with Unions, but there is something wrong with government-backed unions.

Let people collectivize if they'd like. Collective bargaining is fine, and you aren't living in a free country if you can't collectively bargain -- but collective bargaining shouldn't mean you automatically get government as an ally.

The battle between Union and Company should be between Union and Company.

I eat beef all day every day. It's good for you.

I eat beef all day every day. It's great for you.

Where exactly does that $ go?

Ben Shapiro at 12 years old, playing violin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK8mbA083hE

So are America’s

I obfuscated it because I knew you would pick the right party without me elaborating.

I don't think the left-wing advocacy is altruistic. If it was altruistic, it would promote altruism. It, instead, promotes redistribution of wealth.

Do you think redistribution of wealth is altruistic? How so?

You use the word racist to mean two different things.

The basketball team being all black isn't racism and it isn't due to racism.

If I saw a basketball team (in the NBA) of all white people, I would suspect racism, but it's important to point out that the outcome (an all white NBA team) is NOT racist in itself. Even if it is likely due to racism.

So, I think we should stop calling the outcomes 'racist' and say what we mean: "I suspect this outcome is due to racism"

I think that will make the whole conversation a lot easier to have.

I don't think its advantageous to certain political entities, however, if we have this conversation. There is one party in particular that I think relies on people to believe that their problems are outside of their control, so that maybe they'll outsource the problem solving to the government.

Maybe I have it pinned all wrong, but I will never know if we can't talk about racism and outcomes of what may or may not be racism as two separate things.

It’s more clear to me than ever now that the left and the right do not use the word “racist” the same way.

The left thinks of racism in terms of outcome and the right thinks of racism in terms of intent.

We could benefit from better language around these concepts, and honest dialogue about them too.

It just dawned on me that the left and right absolutely do not think of “racist” exactly the same. The left looks at outcome and the right looks at intent.

We need better words.

Makes sense.

What if the company does work out of San Francisco California, is incorporated in Delaware, but I live in North Carolina? Am I still protected?

This feels a lot like how everyone complained about the iPad when it came out, but then it turned out to be no big deal.

As an iOS developer, is there any way for me to get involved with your Basic Income research and development?

I have a general life question for you Sam. What do you think is the main thing or things that holds great people back?

Semantics. Isn't that all basic income is? That money is coming out of the pockets of people making income. That income is coming from the pockets of employers.

What if some companies experimented with basic income? I mean, sure, people working there are probably already getting paid pretty well, and 'basic income' at that point might just seem like a small bonus to their salary, but what if it was implemented like we implemented life insurance? Hear me out:

So, you work at Company X. You and one person of your choice are now entitled to basic income. It will come as a separate check, paid for by the company. You can put your spouse, your family member, or a friend--etc. as a beneficiary of the basic income, or choose nobody at all and miss out on this "free money".

That person would have to agree to accept the money of course, and the check will be written directly to them, not you (you are not a proxy).

One main difference between this and an actual implementation of basic income is that these individuals will only receive the basic income as long as you work at Company X (unless, for some reason, the Company agrees to continue the program beyond your employment).

Another difference is that it's linked to the success and failures of this company, instead of the successes and failures of society as a whole (the latter seems less risky).

Anyway, I'm posting this more as a prompt.. What if? Do you think it's a reasonable experiment for a company to run? I know big names like Google and Facebook have some interesting perks, so why not basic income for all your employees plus 1 person of their choice, paid for by a flat % of everyone's income at the company?

I think 'reactions' is the way to go. Slack has it, Facebook is testing it. I think by this time next year it will be standard.

Hmmm.. Swift on Slabs

Great points. And for the record, I guess I'm young. I'm single with no dependents. :P

I don't remember specific numbers (this was over a year ago) but I imagine it would change depending on the startup. I remember thinking the offers were fair.

Hey, "AMA" does mean "Ask Me Anything"

I was making $100k and was able to find a small apartment in SF AND save about $2k a month (granted, I've finished paying my student loans). Not needing a car, and the ability to walk / scooter / public transport everywhere for relatively cheap, is a huge money saver! My half of the rent each month, as of today in SF, is $1300 ($2600 for the whole apartment in SoMa), but you need to take into account the money I'm not spending maintaining a car (which can be costly in the city, especially w/ parking).

As for health insurance, you'll more than likely find a job that offers that. I had great health insurance, the company had some neat perks like a gym membership, free lunch and dinner at the offices, and permission to work from home pretty frequently.

I think if you are anticipating $100k a year in SF, you'll do fine!

I interviewed for a company once that had different kinds of offers, ranging from low-salary/high-equity, to high-salary/low-equity. I thought that was an interesting idea :D They had 5 options total, and the middle option wasn't awful. I'd like to see more of this in the valley.

I'd consider it a hack. It was improvised in a short amount of time, and with limited resources. Sam shouldn't have gotten the deal, but he did! I'd say he beat the system. Which system? The Universe.

Hey Sam, can you give please tell us about the time you, sama, most successfully hacked some (non-computer) system to your advantage?

There's no denying that death is a common consequence of war.

I wish Singapore was part of the study. I think generally, drug laws do not 'work' (by work I mean, it doesn't stop people from doing drugs and in many ways it probably gets them into situations to commit crimes not related to drugs), but I'm curious how much the study would have been thrown off by Singapore's results.

I'm speechless.