No, value to the business only sets the ceiling. The floor comes from the labor supply side of the market. (i.e. can the company find qualified people willing to do it at X rate)
>how society decides salaries. It seems pretty arbitrary from my perspective.
Society doesn't "decide". It's a decided by the labor market. Nobody wants to pay programmers six figures.
It's a myth that we think teachers are less important than programmers because they make less on average. There is just a larger supply of qualified teachers willing to work at lower prices.
Wait until you find out how little art history masters holders make. Amount of training is irrelevant to how much money you get.
No, long before AWS, Amazon intentionally re-invested all of the excess revenue that would be reported as profit back into the business instead (expanding capex and opex).
>No, because at this point the barrier to entry is substantial.
Not really. Unless the product has a powerful network effect, people can easily enter. If that weren't the case, starbucks would have run every coffee shop out of business by now.
>After doing this for a while, you can use these relative effort estimates to project completion dates for new projects.
This doesn't work. The problem is that you get periods where the work is relatively easy overall so 5 points ends up being tasks that take 2 days. Then you pick up new difficult features and estimate everything relative to all of the new hard tasks and you end up with 5 points meaning 5 days.
Sure you can gauge relative difficulty of tasks between each other, but in a regular developer's day-to-day life the range should really be 1-100 or so rather than making stuff fit into 12 points or less.
Not related? Tapping an undersea cable doesn't compromise encrypted traffic.
Unless it looks like the NSA gets Apple and Google to put in back-doors, the products are still significantly safer than Huawei which is just an arm of the government.
Then why are you talking about a garbage company? Your whole comment is building an analogy.
>Although I’d like to know which step in my story stops qualifying as one.
This is where it stops qualifying:
>Instead of taking the land, the government just declares that it’s legal for the garbage company to dump trash on other people’s land, and the owners just have to deal with it. This is quite different in the details from the original subsidy, but the overall effect is essentially the same.
The government saying "it's legal to do X" and all companies in any industry and any individual (what we're talking about is CO2 emissions) are allowed to do it, it's not a subsidy. It's just behavior with an externality that the government doesn't tax.
> Could you find one economist that would say that an unpriced externality is not a subsidy?
All of them?
>This isn't a tortured analogy, it isn't an unconventional use of the term, these things are economically equivalent.
No they are not. This isn't the equivalent of a tax break that other companies are being taxed for. It's a think for which no taxes exist for anyone. No industries are being taxed for these externalities.
>I personally appreciate the headline saying "town" in a colloquial sense
But that's the problem. It's not a "town" in a colloquial sense for anyone who grew up outside of major metro areas. If 170k is not enough, then there are no cities in Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, nor South Dakota.
People use the word NULL and in all caps as well, in particular in bureaucratic processes like those you would encounter at the DMV.
NULL & VOID, etc.
It is entirely reasonable that the system would not accept an empty string for the plate so the process folks worked around that by instructing all employees to write NULL if they couldn't read the plate.
>what I wished existed when I was learning said details.
This isn't what 'pedagogical focus' means though. Just writing down the stuff that helped you out very rarely covers what is necessary to help people out in general.
A pedagogically focused approach would also cover the assumptions you had going in and provide clear references to expected prerequisites. It should also cover the "why" for a specific approach if there are multiple approaches, which is very frequently left out of internal documentation wikis.
>Huge amounts of cheap debt allow companies to buy lots of stock, driving up prices.
Companies don't use debt to buy stock. Taking on the debt to do that would depress the stock price the same amount that the buying would attempt to appreciate it.
>All of this causes massive asset price inflation.
This would be reflected in the CPI.
>Stock prices are detached from actual revenue
No they aren't. See UBER/LYFT/AAPL.
>so the FED gets to claim "there is no inflation"
The Fed does not claim that. They claim inflation is nominal near their intended target.