If you're salaried, you are not a task-based worker. The company pays you a salary for your full day's worth of productive time. If you can suddenly get 5x more done in that time, negotiate a higher salary or leave. If you're actually more productive, they will fight to keep you.

Your salary is not determined by your productivity, it's determined by market rates. 5X productivity does not mean 5X salary. Employers prey on labor market inefficiencies to keep the market rates low.

Any employer with 2 brain cells will figure out that you are more productive as a developer by using AI tools, they will mandate all developers use it. Then that's the new bar and everyone's salary stays the same.

Your salary is determined by whether you play golf with your boss's boss.

Yeah a 20$ plan is prob enough for the AI slop you need to fill in your 8h working time. Unless you have many projects that require more AI slop that is.

That's your problem, or your company or your country.

Here in EU, if not stated in your work agreement, it's pretty common people work full time job and also as a self-employed contractor for other companies.

So when I'm finished with my work, HO of course, I just work on my "contractor" projects.

Honestly, I wouldn't sign a full time contract banning me from other work.

And if you have enough customers, you just drop full time job. And just pay social security and health insurance, which you must pay by law anyway.

And specially in my country, it's even more ridiculous that as self-employed you pay lower taxes than full time employees, which truth to be told are ridiculously high. Nearly 40% of your salary.

In my country France, your contact May state hours, so you're paid to sit in the chair

Freelancing as a side hustle may be forbidden if your employer refuses

And it makes sense to pay more taxes since you also have more social benefits (paid leaves, retirement money and unemployment money), nothing is free

Hmm, not a practice I’ve come across in the EU. What countries specifically are you talking about?

> Here in EU, if not stated in your work agreement, it's pretty common people work full time job and also as a self-employed contractor for other companies.

First time I'm hearing this. Where in the EU are you? I don't know anybody doing this, but it could depend on the country (I'm in the nordics).

Not sure about where you are but here the tax rate when not taken as an employee is effectively the maximum individual tax rate, so usually for actual cash it is best to pay yourself a salary from your freelance “business” and handle employees tax.

There are always loopholes and ways to work around which our tax code will happily discover and kill year on year.

So you get to pick how you want to pay tax but the amount usually isn’t much different when you get to the highest brackets

> Here in EU, if not stated in your work agreement, it's pretty common people work full time job and also as a self-employed contractor for other companies.

Absolutely not a common thing in my corner of the EU.

Communism is an ideal but never a reality. What you see in reality is at best an attempt at communism which is quickly derailed by corruption and greed. I mean, it's great to have ideals, but you should also recognize when those ideals are completely impractical given the human condition.

By the way, this also applies to the "Free market" ideal...

Importantly, problems with the ideal shouldn't preclude good actions that take us in a direction.

There being problems with absolute libertarian free markets doesn't mean all policies that evoke the free market ideal must be disregarded, nor does the problems with communism mean that all communist actions must be ignored.

We can see a problem with an ideal, but still wish to replicate the good parts.

Sure. The issue for me is when people intentionally mislabel something to make it look worse.

For example, mislabelling socialism as communism. The police department, fire department, and roads are all socialist programs. Only a moron would call this communism and yet for some reason universal healthcare...

There's also this nonsense when someone says "That's the free market at work", and I'm like, if we really lived in a free market then you'd be drinking DuPont's poison right now.

Using the words "Communism" and "Free market" just show a (often intentional) misunderstanding of the nuance of how things actually work in our society.

The communism label must be the most cited straw man in all of history at this point.

for all the lip service capitalists give to the free market, they hate it. their revealed preference is for a monopoly.

> Communism is an ideal but never a reality

There is nothing ideal about communism. I'd rather own my production tools and be as productive as I want to be. I'd rather build wealth over trading opportunities, I'd rather hire people and reinvest earnings. That is ideal.

Problem is, you may own the means of production, but most people don't.

If you don't address that, you'll end up with a "dictatorship of the proletariat".

That's not a problem anymore. I live in a 2nd world country. Every farmer has a phone, anyone who wants can get their child a laptop. Just because I don't have access to machines which build plane engines doesn't mean I have the right to complain about proletariat. People who invented, invested, earned and built the damn things own them. If that's "dictatorship" that's fine.

You are deceiving yourself. A phone and a laptop is not the means of production. It is a small part of it. You forget electricity, internet, data centers.

In a rentier economy, the plutocracy slowly take control of all these things and then increase the rent they charge to the rest of us.

This was part of Marx's analysis, as I'm sure you are aware.

Free market capitalism is great, but it has to balanced with regulation or it evolves into feudalism.

I think you're missing the point. Communism doesn't actually exist in the real world. In fact you are right now using it as a straw man (my entire point).

Who in the actual real world with any authority at all is telling you you can't be as productive as you want to be, build wealth, hire people, and reinvest your earnings?

I responded to the main points in the communist manifesto. It is clearly against putting a price on labor and declares hiring as exploitative practice. Clearly against individual capital. Clearly against individual products since capital is a "social power". That manipulative weasel. I can't even own a frickin laptop because it is a means of production and thus "state-owned".

Just because it hasn't been "successfully implemented" according to your personal opinion doesn't mean it cannot be scrutinized.

That's like if there is a sign that says "do not cross 3km/h" when someone says "that's too slow" you go "a-hah! straw man! How do you know you can't go 300kmph with that in place? nobody implemented that sign before!". Socrates would be proud.

> I responded to the main points in the communist manifesto.

OK but that's irrelevant to my post. There's lots of books and manifestos that say lots of stupid things. You're arguing as if this manifesto is a real threat, and I'm saying "show me this threat". This isn't a real person with any impact on your day to day, like say a politician. It's a fantasy opposition.

> Just because it hasn't been "successfully implemented" according to your personal opinion doesn't mean it cannot be scrutinized.

OK sure, where? Where is this real world communism that meets the manifesto you are railing against?

> That's like if there is a sign that says "do not cross 3km/h" when someone says "that's too slow" you go "a-hah! straw man! How do you know you can't go 300kmph with that in place? nobody implemented that sign before!". Socrates would be proud.

OK that's an awkward analogy. It's more like someone wrote a manifesto that said cars shouldn't go over 3km/h and you want to use this "slow manifesto" to argue that any laws that would slow you down are some sort of slippery slope in to "slowmunism".

No one with any authority in the real world is trying to implement the communist manifesto on to you. Not even the terrifying Bernie Sanders wants anything to do with communism. For the love of god, there is no communist threat. You can relax.

The communist manifesto is what basically communism is. It is a real document billions swear by.

But I get it. You are basically arguing that nothing and nobody exists or ever existed or do or does anything to anything or anyone or had any ideas and arguing ideas or what people do or could do or would do is pointless.

Well, have fun with that. Sorry all this thread space was a waste.

> But I get it. You are basically arguing that nothing and nobody exists or ever existed or do or does anything to anything or anyone or had any ideas and arguing ideas or what people do or could do or would do is pointless.

And so now you are just putting words in my mouth I assume because you have no argument. I can’t even parse this.

You started an argument with a stance I never took by railing against a bogeyman I never advanced. And now you’re doing it again.

If communism was anything more than an impractical ideal then you should have been able to point out where it actually exists. But of course it doesn’t exist. It’s just a fantasy. Maybe you want it to exist so you can point a finger and say “see what happens when you don’t do what I want?”?

I think that was the joke

More accurate representation is this:

Productivity multiplies x2 You keep your job x0.5 Your salary x0.8 (because the guy we just fired will gladly do your job for less) Your work hours x1.4 (because now we expect you to do the work of 2 people, but didn’t account for all the overhead that comes with it)

But aren't you supposed to be incentivized to work harder by having equity?

Equity is a lottery ticket. Is sacrificing my happiness or life balance in the near term worth the gamble that A) my company will be successful, and B) that my equity won’t have been diluted to worthlessness by the time that happens? At higher levels of seniority/importamce/influence this might make sense, but for most people I seriously doubt it does, especially early in their careers.

As a non-founder / not a VC you max get a few percentage points, and its mostly paper toilet money until there's an exit or IPO, and the founders will always try to squeeze you if they can, not because they're bad people, but because the system incentivises it. (you'll keep getting diluted in future rounds)

tbh, if im gonna bust my ass I'd rather own the thing.

A recent job offer for a startup was a 5 year vest with a 2 year cliff. Seriously?

That doesn’t happen anywhere outside of Silicon Valley.

And even in Silicon Valley you get the survivor ship bias of the 1% of companies getting to IPO and making their employees decent exit stories...

99% of startups die off worthless and your equity never realises.

No it doesn't. People tell that story but the system is incredibly heavily leveraged to prevent that.

Maybe in a true -capitalistic- market that'd happen.

but the state keeps meddling and making oligarchs and friends have unfair advantages.

It's hard to compete when the system is rigged from the start.

also a fair point :)

Capitalism is exactly about amassing capital to make others reliant on capitalist providing capital for the tools necessary to do the work, then extracting rent from the value produced.

In true capitalist market you end up with oligarchy.