There's a school of thought among "economic leftists" that the disconnect between US productivity and average US worker wages since the 1970s, is due to a decline in "outrage constraint."[0] Executives didn't pay themselves that much more than their workers because it would essentially be considered "uncouth" to do otherwise. They might be rich, but they would be condemned and considered pariahs among their peers. You could optimize your personal gain, but the reputational damage would be be so suboptimal for your firm that you'd wind up in a net worse position.
Social norms and conventions have significantly shifted since then. It is now entirely acceptable for executives to pay themselves several hundred times the average worker compensation[1]. There is no longer any real cost, reputational or otherwise, for optimizing for your personal gain So you might as well get yours, and fuck everyone else. Sure, some people with "Sanders 2016" bumper stickers will whine on Reddit about you, and maybe they'll even get together and yell at some buildings until they collapse due to a combination of in-fighting and tear-gas. But for the most part, you'll just shrug, order another round of layoffs, and think about how much your RSUs will appreciate in the inevitable stock price bump.
And if you're truly concerned about reputational risk, and can't reconcile that some people in society will still think you're a "bad person" for this, and the thought of being a bad person causes too much discomfort for your liking, then you can literally compare them to Hitler and find a sympathetic audience.[2]
I have to imagine -- and yes, I literally have to imagine, because I don't have any quantitative evidence and don't pretend otherwise -- that this is essentially a sociopath mindset (perhaps best explained by the Gervais Principle[3]) that then trickles down at every level of most professional organizations. When you're optimizing for your personal gain, you don't have a lot of time to consider things like "empathy" or "fairness." This is unfortunate to those disposed to such personality traits like the OPs father, because they essentially get eaten alive in the modern American workplace. At many professional organizations, the approach is binary. If it's not "fuck you, got mine" then it's "fuck! you got mine."
HN is known for having a significant population of those who that there is nothing wrong with this, and if the most productive members of society happen to be sociopaths, then they should be rewarded as such as their productivity is what drives the human race forward. But what's unfortunate to me is that this means some of our society's most brilliant and productive people will essentially get marginalized in their professional (and indirectly, their personal) lives, not because they lack some level of competence, self-reliance, productivity, etc, but because they're incapable of embracing a sociopathic mindset to professional advancement.
I have no problem with those who want to make their fortunes in any way possible, so they can retire to Galt's Gultch with their fortunes. I suppose I only question why they're so hell-bent on having only assholes for neighbors.
I've lived in Los Angeles in 2004, and I liked this article a lot. But I think there's another aspect that I think the OP overlooked:
The dominant industry here will always be Hollywood, where the price of failure can be literally devastating. If your startup fails in the Bay Area, it's not too hard to become a line engineer at another company. If your hedge fund fails in NYC, it's not too hard to get another job at another fund, PE firm, or commercial bank. In some cases, these "failures" are looked at as badges of honor, and likely gave you a lot of hands-on experience you can directly apply to your next job.
But if you fail in Hollywood, you're looking at however many years lost of your life, when you were making no appreciable money as a bartender or barista, with likely no applicable skills to any other industry. I found it amusing the OP described LA rent as affordable -- which by NYC or SF prices, it definitely is! -- yet LA also has the worst income/rent ratio of any city in the US, by far[0]. This is not due to rent being too high, but due to income being too low, because everyone here is broke while they're trying to write screenplays and go on auditions.
It's really hard to live here without having friends involved in the entertainment industry, so in other words, it's really hard not to see this up close. And even if your friends work on the production or post-production side, it's not much better. At least you have a steady salary, but you're probably also working for a huge megacorp studio that literally embodies every single Office Space cliche. Or you're working for a production or post-production vendor that has to jump through ridiculous hoops and work ridiculous hours to get business from said studios. And while that steady salary is nice, it's still not nearly enough if you want to ever actually do own property some day.
So, I wonder how much of that also tempers the goals and dreams for LA startup entrepreneurs. I know it's something I think about often.
While the OP was focused on Penn (I'm a Penn grad '04, fwiw), I'm sure this is pretty common at a lot of other selective colleges. I wrestled with a lot of the same exact feelings the OP did, although it never quite got so bad for me.
Ultimately I just remember struggling so much with... "identity," if that's the right word for it. Penn basically ended up disproving everything I thought I knew about myself when I was 18. I thought I was a "high achieving" individual, then I was suddenly very average. I thought I was someone that made friends easily, then I found myself on a campus with 11,000 undergrads yet basically felt like I had no friends. I thought my ethnicity was irrelevant because I we now lived in a post-racial America (hah!), but it seemed like so many organizations there defined themselves by socioeconomic or racial lines. I thought I was good at programming, yet I felt so completely lost in my comp sci classes.
It was pretty harrowing feeling like everything I thought I knew about myself was false, and I couldn't figure out what was true, and I was still expected to achieve at a very high level while I was figuring it out. The OP's anecdote about going to Wawa really hit home, because I remember almost literally the same thing happening to me, and that's all it would take to feel like nothing made sense anymore. Am I really the kind of person who doesn't have a single fucking friend out of 11,000 undergrads that would take a 10 minute break to grab a sandwich?
The OP seemed to blame Penn as an institution, and I do think these selective universities could do more to recognize that some of their students will basically feel like they've been abruptly thrown into a crucible, and it's not always painless to adjust. The OP advocates things like publishing suicide rates, but I think that's just another way of advocating, "please tell everyone they don't need to pretend everything is great, because I've felt fucking miserable sometimes and I don't think I'm the only one."
There was a guy in my freshman dorm that basically did "crack" and abruptly withdrew for the semester, and I just remember everyone just kind of smirking about it. "Yeah, Sean went nuts or something. Was spazzing out over a midterm and then next thing I know, all his stuff's packed and he's gone. Guess he couldn't hack it."
I didn't smirk. I just remember feeling sad and wishing Sean had said something to me. Feeling overwhelmed apparently meant "going nuts." Was that fair? That didn't seem fair. I don't think Sean would have thought it was fair either. Maybe we could have gotten a sandwich at Wawa and talked about that.
I'd argue the ACA will enhance the market for SimplyInsured. Yes, for an individual who wants a basic policy, Covered CA will probably be sufficient and they won't need more help than that. But there are dozens if not hundreds of edge cases.
Some examples off the top of my head:
- A healthy 24 year old software engineer is making $75,000. This means he doesn't qualify for any of the tax subsidies by buying insurance on the exchange. He wants to avoid the $2,500 penalty for being uninsured, but every plan on the Covered CA will cost more than that over 12 months. Perhaps his best option is to buy an individual policy for catastrophic coverage only.
- A small business isn't sure whether it's optimal to insure their employees, or just give them a cash "bonus" and tell them to buy their own policy on Covered CA (similar to what Trader Joe's announced they're going to do with their part-time employees).
- Purchasing insurance on Covered CA is limited only to certain enrollment periods (this is perhaps the biggest misunderstanding, as I've seen various media personalities ask "why wouldn't healthy people just wait until their sick, and then get insurance?" countless times). However, there are exceptions for a life-changing event. Thus, a person who is laid off (thus counting as one of those life-changing events) would like information on whether their best option is to pay for COBRA or buy a policy on Covered CA.
Basically the ACA is complex, but it does turn health insurance into a much more structured and transparent market, which lends itself well to applications like SimplyInsured. Otherwise, what could any sort of system do for my third scenario, for example? All anyone could advise to have them stay on COBRA because they'd probably get screwed by letting it lapse and then trying to get an individual policy.
Yet another handful of anecdotes about a need-based social welfare program.
If you're desperate enough, sabotaging yourself to qualify for a need-based social program eventually becomes the objectively optimal thing to do. This is the first I've heard of that sabotage extended all the way to intentionally getting AIDS and intentionally not seeking treatment, though.
Typically these stories can be dismissed for the anecdotes they are. I have a handful of right-winger friends who love sending me some article from the Wichita Star or something where some woman got promoted at her job, lost her Medicaid benefits, so she quit her job, and now gets even more benefits, or something, and RAAAR $16 TRILLION IN DEBT WE'RE ON THE ROAD TO GREECE MAKERS TAKERS SMALL BUSINESS THIS COUNTRY IS GOING TO HELL.
No, this country has decided it's beyond the state's responsibility to provide food, shelter, and medicine to everyone. Instead, various state and local programs only provide it those things to a fraction of the people who need it, usually based on some seemingly well-intentioned criteria. And then some people have the kind of lives where being a homeless prostitute without AIDS is worse than having a roof and having AIDS, so they decide to do that.
You can accept that any program like this will induce morally hazardous behavior in some people, and look for objective information vs. sensationalized anecdotes to see if that program needs reform. You can also realize any need-based program will almost always introduce said morally hazardous behavior, and the problem is that we underfund these programs so that they need this need-based criteria to begin with.
Or you can push to eliminate all these programs because you think they turn everyone into lazy welfare AIDS-seeking moochers, and the good news for you is there's already a political party in the US that pretty much supports all that.
For years, the two things that most frustrated me to hear from product managers were "how hard would it be..." and "can't you just..." It took me quite a while to figure out why I had such a strong, visceral reaction to these phrases.
Oh, man.
When it comes to my natural reaction to this, the words 'strong and visceral' doesn't even do justice.
It took me a really long time to understand why I had such a deep-seated loathing for phrases like that. Think of some absurd scenario where someone asks you to cause harm to yourself, so they can benefit in some way, and that's how I would respond. I basically translated these requests to something like, "can't you just shoot yourself in the foot, so I can sell your toes?" and reacted accordingly.
This post provides some good examples -- explained in a much more objective and rational manner than I've been able to -- of the cost, and why this bothered me so much. In general though, if engineers have to spend a lot of time mitigating "can't you just...?" then I think it may point to a more systemic problem in the organization. Namely, the business units are so disconnected from engineering they don't even realize the costs of what they're asking for, and the engineers are so disconnected that they reap zero benefit from whatever business goal is going to be accomplished by this.
I'm actually okay with shooting myself in the foot to sell my toes every once in awhile. I just don't want to do it if everyone else is going to make money from selling my toes except me, and they don't care about giving me time to rebuild my foot afterwards.
As a resident of Los Angeles, this seems anecdotally (which has the usual caveats) obvious to me. I saw home ownership lead to issues with employment within the Los Angeles metropolitan area.
There is a lot of "affordable" ($400K to $600K) single family homes in the San Fernando Valley, or towards Orange County, so I had a lot of coworkers buy homes in those areas. If you work in Venice, a house in Torrance is about a 45 minute commute by car. I know this will sound absurd to a lot of people in HN, but if you told a Los Angelan your commute to work was 45 minutes each way, they would say "that's pretty good."
However, if you bought a home in Torrance and live there and a company in downtown LA wants to hire you, even though you're only driving about another 8 miles or so, your commute will probably explode close to an hour and a half, and at least one day a week there'll be some clsuterfuck of an accident on one of the freeways, and you'll have the lovely experience of leaving your house at 8:00am and somehow still being late to your 10:00am stand-up meeting. Fun times!
So I saw home ownership cause former coworkers limit their economic mobility to within one section of one city. For them, it was an option to simply wait until a desirable job opened up in the areas with a bad-but-not-intolerable commute, or they were able to mitigate commutes by negotiating flexible hours with their employers (e.g. working 7am to 3pm, or 11am to 8pm, or only coming in 2-3 days a week, etc).
I recognize Los Angeles' traffic is about as bad as it gets as far as a home ownership "anchoring" someone, but if home ownership causes a reduction in mobility for professionals in a high-earning and high-demand field, I can only imagine the kind of impact it has on the rest of America.
>>It is now up to you to demand your deposit back and to challenge the validity of your “signature” on any alleged bank “loan” agreement or check.
Great. Have fun stashing your cash under your mattress. Or maybe you'd rather just have gold bars, but I hear those aren't as valuable as they used to be these days[0].
This is nonsense. Fractional reserve banking[1] has existed for literally centuries. Based on the concept that "not all depositors need their money at the same time" and "most creditors pay back their loans," a bank can give out loans in excess of the cash they have on hand.
Naturally, this isn't full-proof. Banks can make too many loans, and too many of those loans go bad, and not actually have any money when depositors want their money back. This possibility used to end up being self-fulfilling -- if you thought your bank was at risk of not having enough money to repay your deposits, then you'd immediately withdraw your money, and if everyone did this, then they really would likely not have enough money to pay back your deposits.
You'd have fractional reserve banking even if the currency was anchored to some sort of asset like gold. I'd urge anyone to try and imagine a world where banks were required to have 100% of what they loaned out backed in full by deposits. Credit would be extremely tight. Almost any successful business -- internet startup or otherwise -- starts with some credit, and you'd basically be throwing a huge roadblock into any brilliant but capital-intensive idea. Did you invent an amazing prototype and now want to get a loan so you can build a factory and crank out and sell your new invention? Well, guess you have to wait until a bank has enough in deposits to loan out, of which they'll probably charge you usurious interest rates, since they can't tolerate any risk of eventual default because that could bring their below 100% of deposits.
In lieu of requiring banks to cover 100% of loans with deposits, in the the US we have things like FDIC insurance, and we had laws like Glass-Steagall, to minimize the chance of bank runs and bank defaults happening, and to mitigate the impact when it does. I'm sure all the resident HN Paulbots are already furiously pounding away at their keyboards ready to blast my naivete about fiat currency, government manipulation, inflation, Ben Bernanke being the spawn of Satan, Too Big to Fail, etc. To me, those are separate from the OP's point, which attacks fractional reserve banking as some sort of Great Lie that needs to be expunged.
Easy DNS charges $19.95 CAD/yr for its basic package of DNS services for a domain. Amazon's Route 53 charges $0.50 per month, or $6.00 USD/yr. Given the OP claim to be "traditionally anti-big government, pro-free market, pro-capitalist whack jobs," they are offering a service 3x more expensive than a comparable service US company. Maybe EasyDNS has some extra goodies that Route 53 doesn't to justify the higher price. Either way, that is what drives Mr. Smith's invisible hand, and acting like US states enforcing their 6% or 8% or even 8.75% sales tax is some sort of game changer is absurd.
The OP seems to woefully misunderstand that this is not a new tax. This requires any internet business with over $1 million in sales -- which I'm guessing doesn't apply to a lot of startups whose founders/employees read HN, btw, mine included -- to collect any applicable state/local sales tax at the point of sale, just like pretty much every local business. And if these businesses are getting squeezed by internet retailers, I'm guessing it has nothing to do with sales tax. Recently I needed a DisplayPort/DVI adapter, and impatiently went to Best Buy, where the only one I could buy was $30. Then I saw this one on Amazon for $4.95 on Amazon -- http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003BHHIA4 -- promptly ordered it, and returned the Best Buy one, even though Amazon sales tax meant I actually paid $5.45. Best Buy is getting destroyed because retailers can sell similar products at a 84% discount, and that would still be true if it was only a 78% discount.
So, to the OP and all the other people I've seen on HN lamenting that this bill is akin to exhuming Adam Smith's corpse and urinating on it: can we please stop acting like this is the end of the world? Making sweeping states predicting economic outcomes without practical considerations (e.g. many internet retailers have a pricing advantage that dwarfs sales tax) and human responses (an effective 6-10% increase on purchases -- 'effective' because this is a tax they should have been paying anyway -- is not really accomplishing much. There are times to get infuriated about the government fucking up the free markets and disincentivizing capitalist innovation and production, but I don't think this is one of them.
For software engineers, it's extremely likely that whatever company you started working for in Year 1 will be completely different in Year 5. Google wasn't the same company in 1999 that it was in 2004, which wasn't the same company that it was in 2009, which won't be the same company that it will be in 2014. Leadership, culture, technology, teams, products -- these all can change, and you may not be happy with that outcome of that change.
Likewise, unless you're a completely static individual, your own preferences will change. You might not mind a completely chaotic startup environment at age 26, but you might be over it by age 31. So given all that, over a five year period, what's the likelihood that you and and your company will evolve into being as good of a fit in Year 1 as it was in Year 5? Pretty damn unlikely.
Given this paradigm, the two errors most companies make are:
1) Treating this phenomenon as "disloyalty." For a lot of companies, it's not acceptable to say, "the company went one direction, I went another, let's stop dating and just be friends." Good companies understand this happens, treat their former employees like alumni, and a lot of good things can come out of "just being friends" (e.g. that former employee recommending to others they work at the company). Bad companies act butthurt and whine that Generation X/Y are a bunch of ungrateful 'job hoppers.'
2) Having stupid policies for those that continue to be a good fit through Year 5 and beyond. If a former employee ever says of a previous employer, "I liked it there, I just got a way bigger salary increase at my new company" or "I liked it there, but after I was promoted to Senior Engineer, the only real way to advance was through management/business," then that company lost a software engineer over something completely controllable. I see so many companies locking themselves into 2.7% annual cost of living raises for their current employees while they offer 20% more to new hires, and then complain "it's so hard to find good engineers." Well, no shit.
The OP has essentially managed to set parameters with his current employer where he's essentially in control on how his job will evolves, so he can ensure it evolves organically with his preferences, which is probably why he likes working there so much. But in lieu of having every engineer negotiate such a framework with their employers, it'd probably be a lot more effective for those employers to recognize that this "Year 5" phenomenon happens, and adjust accordingly (ie. not holding it against employees who no longer feel like a good fit, and compensating those who continue to be a good fit and produce)
Has the OP considered that the perceived lack of intelligence of George W. Bush may be based on the outcome of the decisions made by his administration, rather than his southern drawl or verbal miscues?
Keynesian economics is mostly just based on the idea that consumer demand drives the economy ("aggregate demand"). This demand usually is discussed in terms of consumer spending, but this is frequently misrepresented by strawmen such as "Keynesians just thinks reckless spending is the solution to everything" or "Keynesians think the way to get out of debt is more debt."
This is false. For example, it's not contradictory to believe in Keynesian fundamentals and supply-side economics, if you think tax cuts would indeed stimulate private spending to the point of increased tax revenue (which actually did happen when marginal tax rates were cut from 91% to 70% as was done in 1964[0]). You can also be a Keynesian and believe in a balanced budget, if you think deficits are causing inflation that the Fed needs to keep interest rates high to fight, and thus those high interest rates are suppressing private sector economic activity (as was true in the 1990s[1]).
The Great Recession has caused the bizarre circumstance of a liquidity trap[2] -- simply lowering interest rates isn't stimulating economic activity, and inflation is low. The Keynesian prescriptions for this are unconventional monetary policy (the Fed's "quantitative easing," which can be done because there's little risk of inflation) and government fiscal deficits (to make up for the lack of consumer demand). Somehow this gets warped into thinking that people like Ben Bernanke and Paul Krugman think you can solve any economic problem by printing dollars and/or getting into more debt.
I really liked this, namely because I had never thought about this from this angle. The interaction most people have with marriage and the state is taxation on income. It would seem like it wouldn't be too difficult to just eliminate the option to file jointly and be done with it -- the state is no longer involved with marriage!
This article does a good job explaining it's hardly that trivial. It reminded me of Steve Yegge's blog post about legalizing marijuana[0], and a simple concept becomes impossibly complicated when you consider all the practical scenarios and edge cases. Hopefully, you'll never be in a situation where the government has to rule on something like a disputed inheritance, but it has and will do so, often basing its decision on previously established precedent.
What struck me was the logical step that this is a good defense against the slippery slope arguments, because gay marriage is ultimately an incremental step. We have laws and legal precedent for marriage between two people, and we're effectively just saying those laws can apply to a marriage of two people of the same gender. A typical Republican counterargument to the legalization of gay marriage is that you open the door for marriage to be between multiple partners, or between children, or animals, or whatever absurdity. It's impossible for gay marriage to trivially lead to say, marriage to an animal, because the state will have to define and rule on an entire cohort of new edge cases. If you're gay and married and have a child and you die, it's pretty uncontroversial that your partner would maintain custody of the child. But if you are married to your dog and adopt a child and die, does your dog get custody of the child? That's basically absurd.
So, I feel this essay gives me a good answer the next time a right-winger asks me if the government allows gay marriage, what's to stop them from allowing other sorts of bizarre marriage scenarios: the government would have to come up with a bunch of different rules that are way more complex than gay marriage, and we probably won't want to do that.
The whole point of having a country with a central bank that can print money at will (fiat currency), is to have full control over inflation/deflation. When the increase/decrease of the monetary supply is controlled by outside factors, whether it's tied to shiny yellow rocks, or computed bits, or another country's currency, then you run into problems like this:
- Bank runs. It's standard practice that banks will loan out more money than they have in deposits, because it's unlikely that all their loans will go bad at once, and/or it's unlikely that all their deposits will want their money back at once (this is known as fractional reserve banking[0]). But if your currency is anchored to something fixed, this can happen. FDIC insurance is guaranteed in the US because even in some absurd financial economic meltdown scenario, Ben Bernanke can print out USDs to make every depositor whole, if necessary. The only "cost" to that kind of "bailout" is the potential inflation. But you can't do this as a government if your monetary supply is limited because it's fixed to something you can't directly control. The government can borrow money and then make depositors whole, but those that you borrow money from may impose conditions, and those conditions may exacerbate the problem you're trying to solve. See: Cyprus[1].
- The deflation-debt spiral[2]. Yes, inflation "punishes savings," but deflation punishes debt. Generally, debt becomes a big problem in recessions. If you owe $20,000 on your car, and you get a 20% wage cut because your company can only sell goods at 20% of the price they were previously able to, your debt does not go down to $16,000. It's still $20,000. So more of your income will go to paying off debt, which means less of it will go to discretionary spending, which means even more economic slowdown, which means more deflation, which means more wage cuts, which means debt becomes an even bigger burden, etc.
The only real danger to a fiat currency is whether your government's central bank will be so irresponsible with the money supply that inflation spirals out of control. If you're a resident of a third-world country like Zimbabwe[3], transacting in bitcoins will be great because you'll happily trade potential deflationary pain for not being at the whim of a dictator that will print money to increase inflation to one thousand trillion bazillion percent. But if you're the resident of a first-world country which has a responsible central bank, then increasing the monetary supply to fight off deflation is a very good thing.
This is basically the paradox of US healthcare innovation. Canada can tell its pharmaceutical companies, "yeah, that cool drug you just invented, we're not gonna pay you what you want for that." And what option does the pharmaceutical company have? Convince healthcare providers to charge retail prices to their patients as an out-of-pocket expense, or... reduce prices accordingly.
Because healthcare payments are not functionally a government-controlled monopoly (ie. socialized healthcare) in the US, this doesn't happen. So Novartis can sell Gleevec for $75,000 in the US, because a healthcare provider will agree to pay and just bill it to private insurance companies, and those private insurance company will agree to pay and just increase their premiums on the customers, who probably won't notice because, assuming they have employer-provided health insurance, their employer won't take anything more out of their paycheck, but then say increased operational costs means nobody can get a raise.
So US healthcare leads the way in innovation because device and pharmaceutical manufacturers can make a lot more money than in countries with socialized healthcare. So these companies make most of their profits in the US, and then they'll grumble and accept lower prices in every other country, because at that point it's just icing to them. After the profits made in the US, getting $2,500 from Indians for Gleevac is better than getting $0.
The US is effectively subsidizing advanced healthcare for every other country in the world. This is pretty crappy, obviously, but this is a complex problem to solve. Because if you move to a cost-controlling system, then you will stifle legitimate innovation. Why jump through all our FDA clinical trial hurdles if there's no promise of a big payout at the end? Why invest in R&D without the protections of patent law to prevent your drugs from being trivially replicated?
I'm not trying to say, "oh, those poor profits of the drug companies." I recognize this may not be a sympathetic argument. But it's likely to be tough to control costs and yet maintain R&D and innovation. Right now, every other country essentially gets the US to pay the bill for the innovation and they reap the benefits at a lower cost, but with US healthcare already consuming 1/6 of our economy, this isn't sustainable.
"x10 developers" are, in fact, proficient developers, who are experienced with their stack and problem domain.
Well, I'd say this is only true for your typical corporate entity, where their products are basically just web applications that represent a state machine using some sort of database store for persistence (which is... basically everything). By the time the company has achieved some size, there's enough process and bureaucracy and projects mostly consist of what the OP described -- migrating from one framework to another, or some other incremental enhancement that's hardly pushing any sort of business of technology threshold. At previous employers that fit this description, I could have easily been 10x more productive if I didn't have to endure four hour sprint planning meetings or be required by an understaffed QA/DBA/sysadmin team to approve my code before release, all to do completely routine development changes that required no serious problem-solving.
This doesn't mean I'm a 10x developer. It probably means I'm a 1x developer, so a 'true' 10x developer would have been 100x more productive without the aforementioned bureaucratic crap. At these companies that would dogmatically follow Agile and had two week sprints, I might spend four hours, across two days, actually developing -- with the rest of the days filled with various meetings, interviews, waiting for QA/DBA/sysadmins, fucking around, etc. I could easily see how someone could spend only 15 minutes on what took me four hours, and his solutions would likely be more elegant. It doesn't matter -- the limiting factor isn't the development time, or even the development quality. In that environment, there is literally no difference in productive gains between a proficient developer and a 10x developer.
Given a "10x developer" is literally defined by his productivity/quality, if you think they're effectively overhyped/nonexistent, ask yourself this: are you in an environment where a 10x developer could actually demonstrate 10x productivity? At most companies, the answer is no, because a 10x engineer is doing in hours what takes people days, and nobody notices. But in the right environment, the 10x engineer will do in weeks what would take proficient engineers months, or do in months what would take years. They're the people that Steve Yegge calls "Done and Gets Things Smart"[0] or that Rands calls "Free Electrons"[1].
And if you work at a company that can't think in terms of months because it's always concerned about quarterly earnings, then they have no use for 10x developer, and chances are you couldn't even tell if one was even there.
We may have some bumps in the road and some dark ages of depravity and extremely concentrated ownership of the means of production and all that
Well, this is what I'm personally concerned about. I agree with everything you just said. But what is the politically optimal way to cross over that inflection point? Or to rephrase: what kind of rules should we have in government/society so that the transition doesn't effectively cause a revolution and end up derailed? Should we consider an education system oriented around high-skill labor? Should our system of taxation and assistance account for this new concentration of capital? And can you do this without impeding the very technological/economic growth you're accounting for? Too much taxation may stymie private sector advancement, too little taxation may cause an elective or literal revolution, and the wrong adjustments can easily introduce moral hazards (e.g. nobody working at all before our technology is advanced enough to require zero human capital).
Most jobs are selling your time in exchange for money. If your time is mostly fungible compared to someone else's time (ie. most low-skill labor), then I'd say all the algebraic equations expressed in the OP are true. He is essentially modeling supply/demand curves of typical scenarios involving "human capital."
In the past, the value of human capital -- the amount you got paid for selling your time for money -- used to be more lucrative. At one point nearly half of Americans were in a labor union, which artificially constrained the supply of human capital so it would be worth more. Conversely, our previous industrial revolutions required a great deal of human capital (building factories, sewers, etc), generating lots of demand that would keep the value of human capital high. Due to political and technological changes, this is basically no longer the case.
If you're a software engineer, then none of these models apply to you because you are high-skill labor (also sometimes called "talent.") You're paid for your time, but your productivity can be orders of magnitude higher than your pay. In the OP's "expendability of labor" graph, the "sweet spot" is enormous. In my nearly ten years as a software engineer, I've seen colleagues laid off/fired for all sorts of reasons, but none of them were due to, "well we did the math, and we decided your production is not worth your salary." I've seen layoffs where the executives literally admitted they would make less revenue/profits due to the lost productivity of the laid off workers not offsetting the savings in salary, but they had to hit a certain "profit percentage" or some other absurd reason that justified the layoffs.
In any event -- I've thought a lot about the macro-society impact of this new model of economy, if we're truly destined for a world where human capital is just not that valuable. My interest in politics and healthcare has largely been based on this -- what should we consider "subsistence living," and what happens if we reach an inflection point where most jobs paying for human capital are below it?
It's possible, of course, that this will all be moot, and our next industrial revolution will have a huge demand for locally-based human capital (e.g. a "renewable energy industrial revolution scenario," where there is a huge demand for laborers that can install solar panels on houses, or something), and the median income for Americans will increase. Or it's possible for a more gradual shift to happen (e.g. the graying of the baby boomers causes a gradual increase in demand for local caretakers of the elderly). But I'm not sure it's a good idea to just assume that will happen.
It is tough to compare a healthcare "market" to any other market. Fundamentally, healthcare is a good that nobody will voluntarily want, but that everyone is going to need at some point. Furthermore, it does not lend itself for easy consumer evaluation. Imagine if doctors were reviewed on Yelp, and you saw a review that said, "My sister had cancer and this doctor performed the surgery to remove her tumor. Six months later, she died. One star." Did the doctor botch the surgery? Did the doctor actually perform a miraculous operation, giving someone on death's door and full six months of life? And is this something you really feel equipped to compare like whether you want the double cheeseburger at McDonalds or Wendy's?
We could also get into the further perverse incentives specific to the US healthcare system, but I've yet to see a fundamental argument about how efficient market forces can work Adam Smith's magic on healthcare.