> I guess it's expected in HN that someone would focus on the software engineer pay…
This branch of the comments is literally about software engineer pay. See four levels up: "If Facebook could get away with paying engineers $30K/year, no benefits, believe me, they would."
To which you replied, "It's potentially shortsighted to have that sort of myopic utility maximizing mindset…"
> I would argue that there is a non-arbitrary point below which someone cannot meet the items that produce a stable society. Things like being able to raise a family, save for retirement, pay for healthcare etc. When those things are absent people become more reliant on a government/society has to fill in the gaps.
I agree with this. But shouldn't we then be advocating for a government/society capable of filling in the gaps? Expecting individual citizens or corporations to do this out of benevolence seems like a poor strategy.
> But shouldn't we then be advocating for a government/society capable of filling in the gaps?
See my other comment above. There's reasons to believe both the state and the individual have a responsibility in fixing it for both ethical and practical reasons.
This branch of the comments is literally about software engineer pay. See four levels up: "If Facebook could get away with paying engineers $30K/year, no benefits, believe me, they would."
To which you replied, "It's potentially shortsighted to have that sort of myopic utility maximizing mindset…"
> I would argue that there is a non-arbitrary point below which someone cannot meet the items that produce a stable society. Things like being able to raise a family, save for retirement, pay for healthcare etc. When those things are absent people become more reliant on a government/society has to fill in the gaps.
I agree with this. But shouldn't we then be advocating for a government/society capable of filling in the gaps? Expecting individual citizens or corporations to do this out of benevolence seems like a poor strategy.