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.
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."
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:
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.
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.)
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:
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.
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.
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.
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]