throwmeaway33

Sorry for the confusion. It's both.

I think the equivalent of 5% of your salary is put to buying ESOP stock from a pool (I'm not entirely clear how the pool works exactly)

Then separately an amount equivalent to about 20% of your salary is put by the company into a 401k which is vested after working there for two years. There is NO matching or anything. You don't put any of your money into the 401k.

The exact 401k percentage is based on that year's profits, so it allows the company some flexibility financially speaking. If we have a bad year then you get less in your 401k, but your base salary stays the same. If it gets really really bad then people's salaries get cut (that's happened only twice in the company's ~30 history)

Bonuses, dividends and ISOP [incentive stock options plan] shares (these are actual voting shares) are also handed out partly based on yearly profits.

The whole company operates on different contracts and the market is pretty volatile (I rather not say which one, but maybe you can guess), so the system allows a measure of stability for everyone involved.

I'm not sure what the benefit of making bad decisions would be.. maybe you can elaborate on that?

Career people that have been with us for 20+ years have huge amounts of capital tied up in ISOP and ESOP shares (as well as massive 401k's) and they effectively run the company. They often retire kinda early because they are making more from dividends than from their salaries. While I really love the system and I think it's significantly better than the other currently used systems in the tech industry (which are frankly outdated), the way old careerists run the show is rather anachronistic and I think hurts the company in a lot of ways. New hires don't feel as vested in the company and the most dynamic/in-demand people at the company are probably not the people that end up staying for 20 years. I mean in SV working for more than 4 years at one company is considered the signs of a bad programmer! However, on the other hand the old-timers are the people with the most experience and that really shows at certain times.... At the end of the day I get paid well and the organization is super flat (in a ~100 employees org I'm two levels down from the CEO)

I'm also not a lawyer, but I think you wouldn't be able to make an ESOP for a startup. The value of the stock which you buy from the pool is determined by an outside auditor that evaluated the company. My guess is that startups are too volatile to evaluate and simply no one would do it.

Also, the ESOP I work for doesn't have the 401k invest back into itself. lol. That sounds super shady. It's a normal 401k through a 3rd party company, where you choose to invest in different funds. I don't really touch it and just keep it in the default fund b/c I see the whole things as gambling.

I guess I don't understand your argument;

I said: "No advanced society (past a certain GDP) has slipped back into tyranny"

I bring up Japan and Germany. I assumed you were not talking about modern Japan and Germany, and you were referring to WW2 Japan and Germany. Japan was a monarchy that turned into some kind of fascist monarchic bureaucracy and Germany was a failed state that turned fascist. Neither represent a modern society turning tyrannical. And yes, when I say modern I mean democratic and with a degree of respect to civil liberties (which is basically true for all wealthy countries in the world, save some oil states). There is no use comparing the US to China - that's apples to oranges.

This entirely depends on your loans.

If you're loan rates are larger than the rate you're making in your 401k, then it's better to pay off the loans.

The problem with bonuses is that you aren't attracting talent with them. Say on paper you're offering a new hire 80K. At the end of the fiscal year they end up costing you 80K + the bonus. Sure you'll have happier workers, but your getting lower quality people.

We have the same problem at the company I work at. We have a ~20% 401k (not matching, just on top of you salaray - it's an ESOP). So your effective salary is 20% higher then your listed one. However, would you rather get 100K and 20K in a 401k, or a taxable 120K? Most young developers would say 120K - I have student loans to pay off!

So weird benefits packages, like large semi-random bonuses, are kind of bad because you can't compare them to straight up money.

He was being sarcastic. This has nothing to do with the principles of fascism. It may be tyrannical, but tyranny != fascism

If this became an issue then the laws would have to be changed to accommodate the new technology. We shouldn't reject new technology because our current laws aren't suited for it.

I wonder what the Russian's cut is. Since they are the only people that can send astronauts to space right now, they can charge basically any price they want.

"Imagine the US military firing tear gas and water cannons on protesters in Turkey and saying "It's OK, your government gave us permission". "

I think you're having reading comprehension issues. It's not just that the gov't are requesting help. The reason we are involved in Yemen is because the Yemini gov't is incapable of exerting it's own will b/c they are weak and poor. Their interests are also strongly tied to our interests - so that's why we intervene.

Your example has is not at all analogous. The Turkish gov't is not incapable of tear gassing and water cannoning protesters, so they fail the first criteria of being incapable of carrying out their will. The example also fails the second criteria for intervention - that it's strongly in the US's interest.

"Yemeni government != Yemeni people"

Who else can you appeal to in Yemen to get permission to operate drones?

And are you seriously suggesting that the Yemeni people are supporting Al Qaeda? If they are, then they become the "enemy".

The way it works for other nations is we tell them: 1 - You will fight Al Qaeda in our country 2 - If you are incapable, we will help you do it by providing military aid. 3 - If you are still incapable we will us our own armed forces to make sure you are able to. 4 - If you are not willing to fight Al Qaeda or are actively defending them they we will intervene anyways.

The last point either leads to the case of the Taliban where we destroy them because they are defending Al Qaeda, or to Pakistan where they are forced to accept our help.

To play devil's advocate: (and this isn't to excuse the US's actions, but to illustrate a major difference between what happened and what you're talking about)

The big difference in this case is that we have tacit (or maybe even explicit) consent from the Yemeni government to hunt Al Qaeda. So the representatives of the people of that country are allowing us to kill these people basically on their behalf. (which doesn't make it OK, but is a major differnce)

It's not just that we are bullying Yemen into allowing us to bomb people in their country - it's that the Yemini authorities (and probably most of the population) don't want these people operating in their country but they lack the resources and infrastructure to stop them themselves; and that's where we come in.

Bare in min that we also give Yemen a lot of military aid so that we DON'T HAVE TO come in and do their law enforcement for them. In this case that wasn't sufficient and we intervene on their behalf

To make your example comparable you would need to have a person that is evading US authorities, operating in the US, and that we are completely incapable of stopping (and only some other country could do it for us?)

My understanding of arsenic poisoning is that it binds to some proteins that inhibit some processes in cells. This means it eventually gets cleared from the system. So as long as you don't get a lethal dose it shouldn't cause long term damage. There is arsenic in apples seeds and I've never heard of long term issues from eating a few of those.

Lead on the other hand builds up in your system and causes permanent damage.

This crashes Opera....

None of what you said proves it's "essential".

If you have liberty guaranteed by a legal system, then the government can't attack you.

I mean they can but they'd be violating your rights, and for the sake of this discussion we're assuming they will not do that (if you do assume they ignore laws then legislating privacy protections is meaningless)

Shouldn't the focus be on making sure the government doesn't have means to attack people? ie. That people are guaranteed rights and the power of the state is limited.

PS: Bringing up Stalin kinda makes my point. Privacy is only important in dysfunctional societies where the state is not going to abide by the laws that constrain it. No first world nation in the past 50 years has regressed to a totalitarian state.