Here's a slightly more rigorous version of the proof for anyone interested:
1. Suppose the list of primes is finite, and that they are P_1, P_2, P_3 .., P_n
2. Consider the new number P_1 * P_2 * P_3 * .. * P_n + 1. None of the P_is divide this number. Therefore, by definition, it it is a prime.
3. The number we found in (2) is not any of the P_is, and it is a prime. This contradicts the assumption we made in (1). So, the assumption in (1) is wrong, there must be infinitely many primes
The examples in parent's post do not work because they do not follow the framework of this proof. I see parent's point that the claim in the article isn't technically correct, but I think it's reasonable to allow some handwaving in an accessible article written in English :-)
The point is just that if a company wants to participate in a labor market, it has to pay at the going rate in that market. For various reasons, a company might choose to stay in a pricy market. For example, it might be easier to hire for some skillset, or it might be easier to grow your team because your employees have lots of friends with similar skills that they can refer.
Companies that don't think this is an advantage should do what you're recommending, but the ones that do will continue to hire here, while also hiring in other markets. I don't know which group is more correct (it's pretty hard to make any authoritative claims about these things), but that does explain why there isn't a mass exodus from SF to ATL.
A point to note here is that labor markets vary not just by location, but also by what the job is. Many companies in the Bay Area do outsource some parts of their internal IT or Business Intel functions to Accenture and co, for example. What they're doing is exactly that - they're leaving this expensive market because they don't believe the benefits are worth the markup for those specific roles
I think a lot of people don't understand how pay works. The price of a good is determined not by how important it is to you, but by its marginal utility i.e. how difficult it would be to get more if you need it. Water, for example, is critical for life, but is basically free in most civilized areas in the first world because it is abundant.
The price a company is going to pay for your labor depends on how hard it is for them to replace you. If FB can replace a SWE in Atlanta with another for 90k$, that is what they will pay. It has nothing to do with the value of the work you're doing.
I think everyone is bad at hiring because hiring is hard. The problem is that companies are also bad at letting low performers go because we're human beings and public perception, conflict avoidance and empathy for co-workers influence our decisions
People don't want to join companies that have recently had a layoff because they're generally interpreted as a sign that the company isn't doing well financially, outside of companies that advertise firing low performers as an aspect of their culture (Netflix). In an ordinary market, losing low performing business functions might make your company more efficient but it comes with outsized PR cost that makes it harder to hire.
A broader economic crisis offers good cover for such an action. If everyone is laying employees off, it's not as bad if you do it too.
Credit karma lets you file both federal and state for free . CreditKarma's filing service is pretty new, so there are lots of edge cases they don't handle well or at all (for example the UI to enter stock trades is awful). I put my numbers into TurboTax and CreditKarma to make sure they match for validation, then filed with CreditKarma.
You give them a lot of data about you that they then use to sell you insurance and loans and so on, but I actually find their services useful so I consider that a fair trade.
The slavery rhetoric is very commonly used to dehumanize immigrants. This makes it morally easier to justify treating then like an outgroup.
Many, many people cannot afford to lose their jobs because they live paycheck to paycheck. Funny how they're never called slaves or referred to as having owners.
Both are viable strategies. You diversify when you spend time working for startups across different sectors in the hope that some might succeed in their own area. You hedge when you work for several competitors in the same area in the hope that one of them will win in the end.
Hrm, the parallel feels really forced to me. You can invest money in multiple startups at the same time, to hedge your bets. You can't do that with your time if you plan on working full-time.
This. The Republican perspective is that these are not actually different groups of people, but the same people at different points in their lives. The people making salary are younger. They save, then go on to live off their investments when they get older. It is reasonable to tax younger people with earning potential ahead of them rather than older people.
I think a big reason he's able to stay that way is that his real identity is not a public figure. The only thing ordinary people in the community know about him is his name, so there's nothing to talk about.