kadabra9

> Please spare a moment to consider the pain and anguish it brings to families.

How about sparing a moment for the anguish of American citizens and graduates that either lost their jobs, or cant find work, because they were replaced by foreign scab labor willing to work longer hours, for less pay, with no mobility?

I normally wouldn't comment, but expecting someone with that skillset and those kind of opportunities available to them to work for free for 4-6 months with the promise of actual pay "when our seed round closes" was so egregious I couldn't help myself, sorry.

[flagged]

in before this is shadowbanned.

Isn't that the point? Keeping data centers out of neighborhoods that don't want them?

Take a look at his post history, all he does is shill for offshoring so his portfolio companies can save a buck on labor costs.

I'm shocked, absolutely shocked that a Bluesky post would be deliberately misleading to push a narrative that we need more taxes.

Talent diversity willing to work for lower salaries is present elsewhere. That's really what it comes down to.

At least you own it, rather than making up an excuse like "talent shortage" or "pipeline" issue to try to conceal the fact that at the end of the day you're just trying to save a buck.

There are plenty of domestic candidates that have those skills and backgrounds.

You would just rather find offshore candidates and pay them less, rather than paying domestic salaries.

Which, ok, fair enough, but at least own it instead of fabricating some "pipeline shortage" to justify trying to save a buck on labor costs.

Yeah, we know.

I wish guys like you could just be honest and admit its really just about trying to save on labor costs rather than trying to frame this issue like there's some massive lack of skilled domestic engineering talent here.

I love how this is always framed as a "pipeline and talent" problem issue (its not), when it's really a "pipeline and talent at salaries I want to pay" issue.

isn't one meal a day another form of calorie restriction though?

It's very difficult to not be in a calorie deficit when you only eat once a day and are consistently active.

It's already 37% (for Federal). Add in another 14% for California and its over 50%.

But even for simplicity sake, going to 40% would be far better and more practical than confiscating 5% of total assets and net worth.