Healthy young people are less likely to buy insurance than sick older people. But if only sick older people buy insurance the payouts per insured are going to be higher. That in turn causes high premiums. Insurance works if everyone buys in, pays while they are young and relatively healthy, and gets paid healthcare when they are older and sicker.
If you “game” it, it breaks the whole system.
Now some of you might be thinking “why should a young and healthy guy like myself subsidize the old sick people?” The answer is that you will also get old.
What you are describing isn't really private insurance though, its a privately run socialized healthcare system. There's nothing wrong with that, it simply isn't insurance.
You're right. However, all insurance needs to get more in premiums than it pays out in claims in order to be viable. The details will differ about whether there is some kind of bias for certain people to pay more and claim less. With socialized healthcare, the coverage is just much broader and there is less room for "gaming" the system.
I love the name. I’ve been doing this for a while. My name for it is super boring “todo archive” but I am renaming it next year.
Keeping an archive of things I’ve done is great for my mental health. Occasionally, I even look search through it and the associated notes and fish out something useful.
I wonder what is the difference between the two groups as far as the rate of finding employment. Might be that the act of looking for a job is stressful.
If the goal is to get people back to work, it might not make sense to optimize just for better mental health.
And note that actually getting work removed the controlled money. That's quite a disincentive to actually finding work. Welfare systems very often end up being a trap because of this--people can't afford to succeed because they'll hit some tripwire that makes them worse off.
I'd like to see welfare systems and tax codes modified with a rule that no situation can cause more than a 50% marginal "tax". (Which would mean many cutoffs in the tax code would effectively be replaced with phaseouts even if Congress didn't specifically fix them.)
> Welfare systems very often end up being a trap because of this--people can't afford to succeed because they'll hit some tripwire that makes them worse off.
This is very much a problem in the US. I've lived it myself before I was making 6+ figures, and I've known many people that lived through it as well.
I had a higher quality of life working very part time minimum wage + benefits (SNAP, free healthcare, subsidized housing) than I did making 50k/year.
Most on welfare like that, you actually end up with a much worse quality of life the moment you make a little more money or find a better job and lose your benefits. There's far too big of a gap between "needs assistance" and "makes enough money to have the same or better quality of life as being on benefits" so for most, you just purposely work less or work lower paying jobs in order to keep collecting benefits because to do otherwise means you are worse off.
For someone who has subsidized housing, free healthcare, and SNAP, why would purposefully lose all of that, but still remain poor, just because now you work 40 hours/week instead of 20. Unless you can make a huge jump (say, go from minimum wage up to $75k+/year immediately), don't bother trying to get off welfare, it won't do you any good.
The tax code (at least in the US, YMMV in other countries) is already progressive. Making more will never have you taking home less.
However, most welfare systems have hard cutoffs. If you get $500 in SNAP a month and make $500 a month, you have $1000 to last a month. And if the cutoff is $501, making that one extra dollar is going to cost you $499.
What would be more difficult, also gameable, but better all around is to have benefits adjusted to get people to a baseline.
Say the poverty level is $1000 a month. You get $1000 - X, where X is how much you made in that month.
> However, most welfare systems have hard cutoffs.
Most welfare systems have phased benefit reductions (there is a point where the benefit hits zero, which can be viewed as a hard cutoff, but it doesn't go "full benefit up to the line and then zero at the line" in most cases, though there are exceptions.
> If you get $500 in SNAP a month and make $500 a month, you have $1000 to last a month. And if the cutoff is $501, making that one extra dollar is going to cost you $499.
If the SNAP cutoff applicable to your situation was $501, then your actual benefit at $500 would be $24 (the minimum SNAP benefit), not $500. Because SNAP does a $0.30 per dollar of income clawback until the minimum benefit is reached, and then stays at the minimum benefit until the eligibility limit income is reached.
There is a cliff still, but its a lot smaller of a cliff (for SNAP alone) than you are painting.
I'm talking about the US. You're looking at the simple version: just income. But the tax code is more than income--there are many benefits that go away at a specific AGI--if you use that benefit you can have an effective tax rate of over 100% in the realm just above the fence.
And your system doesn't work. Working is almost never truly free, you have to spend some money to make money. And you don't have that time available to do other things that stretch the money you have.
> Making more will never have you taking home less.
There are corner cases where making more can leave you with less outside of welfare. Tripping into the next IRMAA bucket is one simple to understand one.
Medicare is a form of welfare, just branded differently. It's a means-tested benefit funded in a pay-as-you-go manner via income tax just like any other. The means are just different amongst various programs.
Are there any actual cases of making more earned income via a regular job worse than taking that extra dollar of pay? I'm guessing a few very rare corner-cases exist, but I can't immediately think of any. I imagine they would be somewhere in the neighborhood of the EITC or AMT type things.
Wouldnt it be easier to just give everybody $1000/mo but then use the yearly tax bill to get high earners to pay it back rather than having graduated payouts?
That ensures that everybody gets prompt payouts and feels that there’s a safety net, but no complex means testing and bureaucracy. And the same net cost, although the timing of the payouts will shift a bit
But SNAP doesn't have a hard cutoff. There are welfare programs that do, but SNAP doesn't.
School lunch programs have two phases, free, and reduced. Medicaid varies a bit by state, but transitions to Obamacare subsidies. Hitting the cutoff for medicaid can really hurt, though, if your employer doesn't provide healthcare benefits.
>Welfare systems very often end up being a trap because of this--people can't afford to succeed because they'll hit some tripwire that makes them worse off.
Or maybe they consider getting money you can live on without working to be a success. I know I would.
You're probably not aware that €560 is subsistence money in Finland. Eat noodles every day, sell your car, keep indoor temperature at 18 C to save electricity, then maybe you have enough to pay rent. The idea that people in that situation needs to be kicked even harder to "get of their lazy asses" is cruel.
No one needs to be kicked to do anything. Welfare payments are needed for various reasons. Some people are unable to work for various reasons and need welfare to live. Some people find themselves in temporary situations where the money helps them during hard job transitions or difficult periods in life. It’s important to give people incentives to help them achieve what will make their lives truly better. Sometimes, free money removes those incentives and temporary situations become permanent. I hope you don’t perceive all incentives to encourage constructive behavior as “kicking people.”
It's clearer if you deconstruct the conversation about Jira and then think about the washing hair and shampoo comment. It's a stretch, but when you see it is should make sense.
I ask my team to clarify requirements better. They say that they already have Jira. It's as if they were implying that the presence of a tool (Jira) should be enough to provide clear stories. But it's not about the tool. It's about them not using the tool properly but pointing at the tool (or process) as an excuse.
I ask my son to wash his hair. He says there is shampoo in the shower. It's as if the presence of the shampoo implies that his hair should be clean. It's not about the lack of tooling, but about the fact that he did not wash his hair with the tool that he had available.
People often blame tooling or methodology, but most often its that they don't know how to use the tooling or methodology well. They will say things like "if we only used X our problems would go away." Most likely, they won't.
I posted a lazy comment earlier because I did not have time to type it out. Apologies.
I see, thanks. All analogies are flawed and that's a fact of life but your clarification made it crystal clear.
RE: your work, I would probably fight hard to reduce all the bureaucracy-inviting tools (like Jira). That removes the excuse "we have tools already, why don't we have clear stories?" -- though I am aware that for many people this fight would cost them their job.
He's saying that there's shampoo in the shower but he didn't use it (implied) -- however, the question wasn't about the presence of shampoo in the shower.
Aha, but that's not a rebuttal at all. The son is just stating a rather very loosely connected fact. If I was the father I'd immediately respond with "Yeah, and?".
Love the title. Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes: "The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
This is what user stories were supposed to accomplish in a more lightweight way.
The whole scrum DoR (definition of ready) status means that something is clear and ready for development.
Stories are written and are sent to the engineering team for clarification. This is where the comments are supposed to come in. There is a clear step for clarification of stories, before the story is ready for development. It gets marked as DoR when that clarification is done.
It does not matter if you use RFCs, user stories, or hallway conversations as your process of clarifying work. If it does not work, it does not work.
Any way you can get your teams to communicate more clearly is great.
> "The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
Love this! Corollary: when you have too many meetings, that’s easy to notice. When you don’t have enough meetings, that’s harder to notice.
I’m in the process of carefully adding meetings and process to our small team of 6 (we had a PM from a large company drop in a few years ago and haphazardly add a bunch of process, and it didn’t really help).
We’re fully remote and have a daily huddle and, on average, 1 hour of meetings a week. It turns out this isn’t enough. So far, each bit of communication we’ve added has resulted in better outcomes and higher morale because we feel more like a team.
NOTE: People pointed out that it's $800 billion to cover interest, not $8 billion, as I wrote below. My mistake. That adds 2 more zeroes to all figures, which makes it a lot more crazy. Original comment below...
$8 billion / US adult adult population of of 270 million comes out to about $3000 per adult per year. That's only to cover cost of interest, let alone other costs and profits.
That sounds crazy, but let's think about it...
- How much does an average American spend on a car and car-related expenses? If AI becomes as big as "cars", then this number is not as nuts.
- These firms will target the global market, not US only, so number of adults is 20x, and the average required spend per adult per year becomes $150.
- Let's say only about 1/3 of the world's adult population is poised to take advantage of paid tools enabled by AI. The total spend per targetable adult per year becomes closer to $500.
- The $8 billion in interest is on the total investment by all AI firms. All companies will not succeed. Let's say that the one that will succeed will spend 1/4 of that. So that's $2 billion dollar per year, and roughly $125 per adult per year.
- Triple that number to factor in other costs and profits and that company needs to get $500 in sales per targetable adult per year.
People spend more than that on each of these: smoking, booze, cars, TV. If AI can penetrate as deep as the above things did, it's not as crazy of an investment as it looks. It's one hell of a bet though.
right. My goof. That adds two more zeroes across all the math. More crazy, but I think in the realm of "maybe, if we squint hard." But my eyes are hurting from squinting that hard, so I agree that it's just crazy.
You're saying $8 billion to cover interest, another commenter said 80, but the actual article says ""$8 trillion of CapEx means you need roughly $800 billion of profit just to pay for the interest". Eight HUNDRED billion. Where does the eight come from, from 90% of these companies failing to make a return? If a few AI companies survive and thrive (which tbh, sure, why not?) then we're still gonna fall face down into concrete.
I think it's the realm of maybe in Silicon Valley. That's 5000 dollars. Look at this statement:
> Let's say only about 1/3 of the world's adult population is poised to take advantage of paid tools enabled by AI
2/3 of the world's adult population is between 15 and 65 (roughly: 'working age'), so that's 50% of the working world that is capable of using AI with those numbers. India's GDP per capita is 2750USD, and now the price tag is even higher than 5k.
I don't know how to say this well, so I'll just blurt it out: I feel like I'm being quite aggressive, but I don't blame you or expect you to defend your statements or anything, though of course I'll read what you've got to say.
In the broad picture of engineering, I would consider this to be technically difficult. Many pieces of the puzzle need to interact correctly to remove latency, from physical location, network gear, decision about where software runs, removing unnecessary layers of everything, to algos and data structures, and doing razor-tight tradeoff analysis favoring low-latency at every step along the way. It’s also expensive. So it’s hard to agree that this is not hard. On the flip side, if you find this easy and want a job, msg me.
The OP mentioned that "most parties there take minutes to process messages". My point is really that if transactions are taking minutes to complete, that's likely to be a social/structural problem, not a technical one.
With today's technology and all the work in this space, it's not particularly technically difficult to get such times down into the seconds or milliseconds, depending on the constraints.
Yes, HFT has gone to extremes to get trade execution times down as low as microseconds. And sure, that involves technical challenges. But they're mostly sort of obvious ones - you mentioned some of the major categories - that yield to throwing engineering talent at. But I was referring to the Pareto 80% of gains here.
## *Trading and Exchanges: Market Microstructure for Practitioners by Larry Harris*
- comprehensive overview written in an accessible way
## *The Microstructure of Financial Markets by Frank de Jong and Barbara Rindi*
- 1st 1/4 of the book is generally useful. Then the math starts. This math is not needed to get a basic overview.
These are two books I wish someone gave to me when I started my first capital markets software engineering job. I recommend them to all the people I place in financial system engineering roles.
This is my passion. Message me if you want to talk more about this — see HN profile for contact info.
If you “game” it, it breaks the whole system.
Now some of you might be thinking “why should a young and healthy guy like myself subsidize the old sick people?” The answer is that you will also get old.
reply