Microsoft Expands Its Parental Leave, Bolsters Paid Time Off And 401k Matching - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/05/microsoft-expands-its-parental-leave-bolsters-paid-time-off-and-401k-matching/ <comment><USER2> This is so extremely weird for me. I'm currently on parental leave in Canada, for the next 17 weeks, paid. You get 50 weeks of leave here to split between mom & dad. It seems so ridiculous these articles saying that it'll be hard for the company to deal with the loss of the employee for that long. Hire someone for a 1 year term... done. There's really no excuse when so many other countries have been doing it for so long.

<comment><USER3> Now, I'm very much in favour of parental leave, especially something that allows paternal leave as wells as maternal leave. I think it has huge societal upside.

Having said that, it is naive to think this isn't a fairly large burden on a company -- especially for a software company. First, assume that the company is paying the benefit -- say 50% of salary. That's an expense. Then you have to hire a contractor for a year. The rule of thumb is that a contractor costs double. So you have the same overhead cost (same number of desks), but you are paying 250% of the salary (plus applicable taxes). Then consider the domain knowledge that the worker on leave has. How long will it take for the contractor to get up to speed? So you have a loss of productivity. And the hiring process itself isn't cheap. In the end with all of the costs, you will probably be paying up to 3 times the original salary for the person on leave.

I leave this for the end because I know it is a potential sore point with many people given typical gender based roles. Without wanting to get into that discussion, there is always the chance that the person who goes on parental leave (whoever it might be) will decide not to return to their former career. A year of child care is a long time and many people (for many good reasons, IMHO) decide that this should be their new career. So a company, having paid nearly 3 times the employees salary in costs and lost productivity, may end up simply losing that employee anyway.

It is hard for the company to deal with -- especially small companies that don't have a lot of excess money/time to afford the expense. Again, I'm not saying it shouldn't be the norm, but closing your eyes to the very real hardships of the company in this case will not help it expand.

<comment> ux-app > "It is hard for the company to deal with"

Shouldn't this be considered the cost of doing business? Here in Australia we have mandatory employer retirement contributions of 9.5%. I'm sure small business would love not having to pay this, but that is the cost of employment.

<comment><USER3> A burden is a burden, whether expected or not. The OP was opining that there was no burden because you can just hire a contractor for a year.

Also, unlike pension contributions (here Japan we have to pay 7% pension _and_ 7% health insurance!), parental leave costs are not applicable to all employees; just ones that are going to have babies. So if you have 10 employees and one of them goes on parental leave, suddenly your costs have gone up 20%. As much as this is "the cost of doing business", it's pretty hard to plan for that when you don't know the procreational schedule of your employees. Do you keep a float of capital "just in case"? Heaven help you if 2 people go on parental leave at the same time! How many start ups are going to budget for babies rather than spend that money trying to expand growth? I'm not saying it's impossible, but it is far from easy.

Even worse, in countries where there is no paternal leave, this means it is a cost/risk that applies only to young women employees. I hope it goes without saying that this creates a terribly uneven playing field for women in industry.

Like I said, I'm a staunch advocate of parental leave, but I don't think it is an easy situation for anyone.

<comment> ux-app You're absolutely correct that this is not a simple situation to solve. Unfortunately the US goes into collective anaphylactic shock when words like socialized <insert anything here> is mentioned.

Ideally the state pays for this through taxation or via levy against large corporations. This way everyone has access, even those not fortunate enough to work at Microsoft.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This matches the 401k match that Google has had for some time now.

I would _love_ to see this become a standard benefit in the tech industry. Given that many tech workers are young, and young tech workers usually have high salaries for their age (relative to other professions), 401k money is very, very valuable.

<comment><USER5> Google matches the greater of something like 100% of $3000 - or - 50% of the max employee contribution.

A 100% match from Microsoft would mean an annual 2015 contribution of $36,000 ($18,000 employee + $18,000 employer match) versus $27,000 maximum ($18,000 employee + $9,000 employer match) from Google. That's a $9000 difference.

EDIT: Looks like the article is incorrect. Correct numbers are 50%, as stated in parent comment.

<comment><USER6> You're wrong. MS does 50%.

<comment><USER7> Nobody knows. Microsoft's own release makes no sense. You (and your employer, combined) cannot contribute more than $18,000 tax-free per year. It's either 100% match of $9,000 on your $9,000 to make $18,000, or it's 50% match of your $12,000 to make $18,000. It can't be both things that the press release says it is.

My best guess is that they meant to say they now match 100%, but we won't know for sure until they correct the press release.

<comment><USER8> Actually, employer contributions do not count towards the $18k maximum per year in contributions. This is the specific advantage of having a 401k match in the first place, as it allows employees to have more tax deferred savings than otherwise possible.

Source: [http://www.bankrate.com/finance/retirement/employer-match- co...](http://www.bankrate.com/finance/retirement/employer-match-counts- toward-401k-limit.aspx) (Technically, with employer match, it can go up to $53k)

<comment><USER9> Can also go up to $53K with after tax employee contributions, which can be rolled out into a Roth IRA upon separation from the employer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Really interesting to compare this with another (current) front page article, [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10012312](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10012312)

As someone who is employed by a company of <10 and had to take 1 of 2 weeks vacation for the my kid's birth, I wish I had this kind of benefit, but then if I did, I'd have to deal with all of the negative parts of working for a big company. It's a trade-off, and here in the hinterlands where there isn't VC funding to be had for every app idea or billions behind the company already, we end up with what we can. I'm happier in my small company 8-5 with almost no extra time than I would be working for a big company 7-7 with regular demands for time put in outside of the office.

</comment><comment><USER11> Good move, but I fear this will lead to inequality being further entrenched into the workforce. It appears as if the very skilled workers like the ones at Microsoft, Netflix etc are going to have great lives, and the lesser workers (who may not have such great jobs) will have shittier lives.

That's why the state stepping in is important, this needs to be the norm at a federal level. Otherwise we'll have the rich spend more time with their kids and raising healthier/smarter children, and the poor raising a class of slaves (low child IQ is connected to less parental involvement in early years) to serve the rich. That's not the American dream.

<comment><USER12> > Otherwise we'll have the rich spend more time with their kids

An interesting reversal of history, in a sense. For example Victorian England, where the rich were the ones with the means to "outsource" the raising of their kids, and often did so.

Children of the posher classes would often have a more intimate and parent- like relationship with their "nanny" (or "nurse" or another member of the household staff), than with their own parents. The childrens' lives and daily timetables were managed entirely by the staff, and they were wheeled into the company of the parents for various daily occasions such as meal-times (and a pat on the head before bed). Aside from this, they spent their time relegated to the nursery, or in classes, or on outings with the staff.

Nowadays, on the other hand, spending lots of time with the children is something that might be considered a luxury reserved for the financially secure (who aren't spending all their time taking busses to three jobs).

<comment><USER13> I suspect that any parental-like relationship (such as that between a nanny and child) is more beneficial for the child's development than say, being home alone or in a substandard daycare with disinterested and high-turnover employees.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Wow, and I was excited about 4 weeks of paternity leave at my company. Which I'm still excited about by the way, Microsoft just seems like they are going above and beyond.

I know some places let people take longer off, and Netflix essentially lets you take a year off. This amount of leave is insane to me. Even a month seems like so much I won't know how to use it. I mean after 2 weeks I was ready to go back to work, but the option to go work 2-4 days a week and then spend the rest of the time at home would be awesome.

Last place I had to take vacation and my wife does not get Maternity leave at all.... That on the other hand is terrible.

<comment><USER15> The problem is that most Americans are shocked by this. Almost all of Europe has 6-12 months? Canada has 12? So we act like it's crazy generous thing to have so much paternity leave. Good for MS & netflix. The sooner we have a wave of big tech following the trend the better.

I (working in the US) have a handful of friends that work in Germany and UK. The only "bad" thing about US employment is vacation and parental leave. As a male I don't see a need for 12 months but the fact that my wife get shit here (8 weeks of "sick leave" for having a child) is enough to constantly keep my ears open for opportunities in other countries.

We need to stop being surprised and should be saying "about time".

<comment><USER9> > We need to stop being surprised and should be saying "about time".

Hear hear.

<comment><USER16> Hear?

<comment><USER9> Upvoted. I cannot grammar today. Thanks.

<comment><USER17> Hear, hear

Is apparently the correct gramelling.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> [https://sweden.se/quickfact/parental-leave/#shortfact- parent...](https://sweden.se/quickfact/parental-leave/#shortfact-parental- leave)

<comment><USER19> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Sweden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Sweden)

<comment><USER20> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where-to-be- born_Index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where-to-be-born_Index)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Here's the source:

[https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2015/08/05/the-employee- exp...](https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2015/08/05/the-employee-experience- at-microsoft-aligning-benefits-to-our-culture/)

</comment><comment><USER22> I've always viewed benefits like this as a way for the company to incentivize and/or reward certain behavior from employees. Offering a 401(k) match is a way to encourage employees to save for retirement.

By that logic, offering parental benefits is a way to encourage people to have babies. That's always seemed a bit weird to me because it seems inappropriate for a company to be involved in something so personal. It seems reasonable for the government to say, "we want more people to have kids for the greater good" but it seems strange for companies to take it upon themselves to do that.

I'm not saying new parents shouldn't be able to take time off, but it seems like people who choose not to have kids should receive similar benefits. Maybe companies should offer sabbaticals to everyone, and if some people choose to use that to take time off after having kids, then that's fine. But if someone isn't interested in having kids and instead wants to spend three months pursuing a hobby, that seems equally valid to me.

Thoughts?

<comment><USER23> You're not a parent, are you? ;)

\- I seriously doubt this leave will have any bearing whatsoever on whether an employee decides to have kids. It is such a major, life changing and personal decision it is taken irrespective of incentives. Only serious constraints (no money) might negatively impact that decision. As a new parent, I was very happy to get leave from my company but I would have had kids regardless. Also I never heard of anyone having kids so they could get the 12 weeks or whatever or leave :)

\- Another way to look at this is you have people that are having kids and people that are not. What can the company do to keep the former happily employed/interested in joining your company?

<comment><USER22> Absolutely, I don't think that parental leave will impact someone's decision to have kids. However, giving a benefit to people who have kids without giving that same benefit to people without kids is not that different from the company saying that they want their employees to have kids. It won't actually change behavior, but it still stands out to me as a pretty opinionated stance from the employer about what behavior they want from their employees.

Parental leave is a good way to keep people with kids happy. Why shouldn't we also keep people without kids happy? Everyone deserves time to pursue passions outside of work. Some people are passionate about their families. Other people are passionate about other things. I think employers shouldn't have an opinion on which is more valid, and they should support both.

<comment><USER23> An employer may offer free sushi and beer on Fridays. Does it mean they encourage fish and alcohol consumption? What about employees who don't consume either due to health or religious reasons, or just plain preference? Do they now deserve make-up compensation?

As a parent I never come in late and stay for dinner. This means the dinner service is an employer cost that I get no benefit from. Clearly the single people are the primary reason for this unnecessary cost to the company. I also don't drink soda and I'm not sure why my employer encourages this behavior by spending so much money on free soda everywhere. Lets nix that too!

Maybe you see what I'm getting at. The employer is just trying to accommodate and please people with various life choices for good retention and hiring rates. There's no reason that they absolutely shouldn't offer something to kid-free people only, it's just that they don't currently, probably because they don't think it will help much.

<comment><USER24> You're talking about things that cost almost nothing compared an entire year's free salary.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Between this and Netflix, I'm excited to see how quickly others in the industry respond to match.

<comment><USER25> How likely is Amazon going to follow this trend?

<comment><USER26> I'd bet my money against Amazon following. Amazon already lags behind the rest of the industry in terms of benefits. Employee happiness isn't really one of their values. "Frugality" on the other hand, is.

Just an opinion of a former Amazonian though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'm not sure why people find the 401k changes confusing, here is how it works:

The employee defers up to 18K (IRS limit), MSFT matches 50% of it, which is up to 9K.

Previously they contributed 50% of the first 6% the employee deferred = a maximum of 3% of the salary. So for anyone who makes less than 300K (9K / 0.03), this means a higher match from MSFT.

</comment><comment><USER28> This is a really good move on Microsoft's part & affects about 60,000 people - so not an insignificant number.

What is sad and pathetic is that in the US people are actually shocked by how good this is!! Everyone is programmed to go into "Oh but this will be a huge burden on the company" mode.

What about the fact that currently the US has some of the shittiest laws on the books when it comes to Time-off for new parents?

What about the burden on society when New Moms are forced into their workplace way too soon because of the crappy support from the govt.? So companies do not have to bear this burden but the new moms & babies can bear the hardship easily?

Free enterprise does not mean a license to shirk some of the most basic responsibilities. We should be pushing our elected peeps to take stornger action on this

</comment><comment><USER29> You have to be careful about this. At a previous employer I got a bunch of comp time for my new kid, but when I got back I had these sort of sucker tasks for me to do and I felt this odd kind of resentment towards me from some. So I started looking for a different job cause I felt no matter what I did I could never go back to how it had been. I was pretty depressed about it, it was really subtle, and I think some of my coworkers must have felt I went off the deep end there.

</comment><comment><USER30> Do you think its fair for someone who is childless to ask in response to this about a leave program for people like me who don't have kids?

<comment><USER31> I'm a child free person as well. I would really love to see tech companies offer short sabbatical periods. Knowing the people in the tech community, that time would almost certainly be put to good use: learning new skills, and finishing up backlogged personal projects.

Sabbatical could be a benefit that kicks in after several years, and any parental leave before that time would just be subtracted.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I wonder if Facebook will step up their 401k matching to meet or exceed this, particularly for their Seattle employees. I would ask the same for Amazon, but I seriously doubt anything will move their benefits needle much.

</comment><comment><USER33> Benefits are all well and good, I'd just prefer the large tech employers work to employ more people rather than provide more to those that already have jobs. When these people are out on mat leave are they to be replaced by perma- temps on zero-hour contracts?

There is also something to be said for pay over benefits. Pay is of equal value to all employees. Benefits like leave and 401ks are only valuable to some and can, if dominant over pay, lead to employers having undue influence over the lives of employees.

<comment><USER34> >Pay is of equal value to all employees. Benefits like leave and 401ks are only valuable to some

Well, no. In general, pay and leave are not 1:1 exchangeable if, indeed, they're exchangeable at all. At most companies, an employee can't just say "I'll trade 2 weeks pay for 2 weeks vacation." And, indeed, at some level an employee has to be worth more per day than they are actually paid.

(I'm talking leave generically here. I've no interest in getting into a debate over parental leave specifically which of course applies under certain specific situations.)

As for 401-K contributions, this gets into tax law and the fact that employer contributions (subject to various limits) are deductible in the US. In general, a lot of decisions related to benefits are very much driven by cost to employer (after taxes) and perceived benefit to typical employee (after taxes).</comment></comment>


Show HN: Caster – Screencasts Manager in Elixir, Phoenix and Vue - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/patrickdavey/caster <comment><AUTHOR> The first app I made with Rails, was a simple little video watching app. It allowed me to subscribe to RailsCasts, VimCasts etc. download them, and open up in vlc. Nothing special, but quite handy.

Anyway, I wanted an excuse to play with Elixir & Phoenix, and to play around with Vue, so I remade the app. It also allows you to pull in a youtube video / playlist.

All video's are downloaded locally, and then just shells out to vlc to actually play the videos.

Anyway, it's pretty basic, but I find it useful to have all my videos (for learning) in one place, maybe you'll find it handy.

PRs welcome for any RSS feeds :)

<comment><USER2> Link? :)

<comment><USER2> My bad - didn't catch you were the poster

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I know this is more about the code than the end product, but it's not clear to me what I would actually do with this. Who is this for and in what way should they use it? If/when you get around to refining the README, this would be something I recommend adding.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback, I'll update the README.

It is used for having a CRUD app for managing feeds of videos (like vimcasts.org, rubytapas etc) so that you can have them all in one place, take notes on them. It's also a very simple interface to youtube-dl, so when you come across a useful looking video on HN or whatever, you can just add it to Caster and watch it later.

I like the way the videos are all downloaded offline, it was useful when ravelling in South America last year and not having a heap of bandwidth.

But honestly, it was as much about playing around with Elixir Phoenix & Vue ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Hey cool project OP - how do you feel about the inclusion of Vue. Just curious about your general thoughts because I'm thinking of incorporating either React or Vue into my own website

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, I'd read enough about Vue on HN that I wanted to have a play with it. I'd call myself "full stackish", but I'm certainly no pro at JS. I'd played a little with React (about a year ago) and found it somewhat more finickety to work with, and more heavyweight.

Vue on the other hand I found _very_ straightforward to use and really enjoyable. I did make the effort to use the .vue components, so most of the logic is in nice self contained units. That said, React certainly has a huge user base & is probably a safer bet long term. I just found Vue easier to understand and use & for me that's important (esp on a toy side project which is supposed to be _fun_ ;)

<comment><USER4> Thanks!

I was looking at both and Vue was definitely a lot easier to work with and less finicky. Love the fact that you can just link a script and play - it's also supposedly more performant than React although I haven't verified that.

React took me a fairly long time to 'get' (to the extent that I do) but I can see why it's gotten so popular. IMO it really forces you to be more organized and nudges you toward a more FP-centric approach.

I'm curious about integrating React/Vue with Elixir/Phoenix at some point as I'm really interested in Elixir/Phoenix as a possible future stack.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> How long did it take you the first time, and how long did it take you to remake? If you break down by part it's helpful too, like how long the rails portion took, how long it took to convert to Elixir and then implement Vue, etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a great question, and one I'm going to struggle to answer. Like I said, it was my first Rails project, and I wasn't even attempting to have any sort of tests. The project was developed piecemeal, and then reworked a few times (e.g. adding polymorphism for the different video types, tiny bit of meta programming etc.)

Converting to Phoenix I found pretty straightforward, however, that was _after_ I had spent 3ish weeks going through the Programming Elixir & Phoenix books, so you'd want to factor in time to get up to speed with the language. I found working with Vue very straightforward, I found setting up the browserify development environment with Phoenix & Vue _hard_. Well, tricky anyway. For example, starting up the node processes to watch & rebuild the assets, reload the code in the browser, and getting that to start & stop automatically when you run `mix phoenix.server`, things like that took ages for me to work out, but it'd be way quicker now.

I also found Ecto a bit of a mind-bender to begin with. I'm certainly not holding up my code as a paragon of "the right way to do things" ;) Working out a neat way to do polymorphism in Elixir took me a little time. It's my first functional language so that all took time to get up to speed with (and even then I'm no expert)

Finally, using a client-side framework is total overkill for what is essentially a bog standard client-side app. But I wanted to get to grips a bit with Vue, websockets, and I really wanted to play with Elixir (I'd love to get work in it someday).

You can see the entire git-history if you want to see _roughly_ how long I was spending. I'd still be quicker to build in Rails I'm sure, but, I'd say once I was practiced at Elixir it'd be roughly the same amount of time building in either, and the websocket & ease of integration of JavaScript tooling (pre Rails 5) is definitely better with Phoenix. Converting the Vue was easy though, that just ported as-is (definitely a benefit of only talking JSON)

Anyway, sorry not to be able to give a proper answer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6>
      Videos are downloaded locally, and then viewed using vlc.

Hmm, this is going to take tonnes of space. Any chance it could be optimized? I like how Kodi and similar streaming players works.

<comment><USER7> Not to invalidate your needs, but this is actually what i need.

P.S I am on a metered connection. I'm a little frustrated by this new age of streaming everything. I would like my movies in my hdd, my music in my hdd, my videos locally. I don't mind buying an external storage device if i run out of space.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I have been working with Elixir and the notation is incredible, like pipelines and string matching. It took a while to get used to. Now I am trying get the mongoDB driver to handle replica sets.</comment>


Ask HN: eliminating cable TV - how should I set up my media center? - <AUTHOR>

I'm thinking about getting rid of cable TV and am looking for suggestions on how to set up a new media center. In particular, I'd like to be able to:<p>* record HD content OTA * have complete DVR functionality, including program guide * have a nice, integrated GUI for finding, downloading, and managing content
* have a good remote<p>Can anyone suggest best-in-class hardware, software, and services (including antenna and anything else I might find useful)?  I'm not tied to Mac, Windows, or any other particular vendor - simply looking to create a compelling, cost-effective experience. <comment><USER2> One thing that I love to do is watch the streaming netflix stuff. Get a roku device and go to town with a $8/mo netflix account. The roku has a great interface and tons of outputs.(hdmi, composite, component, svideo, etc...)

This is not a complete solution because you do not generally get shows or movies until some time has passed. But when they do have it on watch instantly it is great.

MythTV has been going strong in the DVR category for a long while now but I haven't used it since it was an infant so I cannot attest to it's current level of maturity.

If you try MythTV check out this plugin for some help recording: <http://www.templetons.com/brad/myth/tvwish.html>

You can also try out a liveCD of MythTV+Ubuntu: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythbuntu>

</comment><comment><USER3> I second the recommendation to get a Mac Mini. Works so well to do everything you would want on your entertainment system: • Use the apple remote, or the Logitech Harmony remote • Optionally get a bluetooth kb/mouse or use VNC • Everything in iTunes plays via front row • Rent/Buy HD TV/movies via iTunes • Hulu/Pandora/Boxee all work perfectly • play dvds • One click rip DVDs to play later • iChat AV on a giant screen • Plug a printer into it and it's shared across your netowrk • Get an EyeTV tuner. They are known for the best PC DVR interface out there. Record programs to watch later

I have this all working and i love it

</comment><comment><USER4> I use a Mac Mini connected to a large LCD TV and use a wireless hand held mouse(gyration) as a remote. Works great to enjoy Internet TV sites (Hulu, Fancast, CBsNews/video, etc..), as well it allows me to read the net from 10 feet away via Fire Gestures (firefox plug in).

At one time I used Windows Media Center when I had cable TV. That worked well and recorded the shows I wanted; thankfully those same shows are now online to stream.

Overall I prefer my current solution as it's cheaper and allows me to enjoy the entire Internet on my TV.

</comment><comment><USER5> My favorite choice is probably MythTV + Boxee for a nicer front-end/social media application. The Mac stuff is nice, but you're locked into a single hardware piece. MythTV + Boxee let you add/modify your hardware as you see fit, select the OS and all that.

</comment><comment><USER6> SABnzbd runs on just about anything, it's great.</comment>


How Netflix pivoted to streaming video after seeing YouTube's potential - <AUTHOR> https://www.recode.net/2017/9/13/16288364/streampunks-book-excerpt-youtube-netflix-pivot-video <comment><USER2> I know this is probably secondary to the overall point of the article, but since I saw this bit:

> "...the most significant consequence of YouTube's revenue sharing has been > the democratization of the job of internet content creator. Every month, we > deposit money into the accounts of millions of creators around the world. > That money is what helps a streampunk get his or her start."

I put ads on a few goofy videos I made years ago and shared. Figured it was worth a try, even if only for some beer money. To date, I've made...just under $40.

Now, granted, I haven't even tried to do any sort of promotion or followups or any of the things you need to do in order to build and grow a channel, so that's fine. The part that sucks is that I can't even cash it out unless I've made at least $100.

I'd even be happy if they only paid cash out over $100 but let me transfer lower amounts to Google Play credit. At least it would give me some "play money" to buy apps or fund subscriptions.

<comment><USER3> Can you not make more goofy videos and share them too? I've done likewise and had it cash out a few times at this point without much effort.</comment></comment>


The best Android games without in-app purchases/paywalls - <AUTHOR> http://www.slant.co/topics/1194/~what-are-the-best-android-games-without-in-app-purchases-paywalls <comment><USER2> On reddit today, I came across this site:

www.honestandroidgames.com

Honest Android Games

Every game that is featured on this site is either completely free with no advertising, has a one time up front cost or one time IAP to unlock the full content ad free. All screenshots are from a Nexus 7 2013, full sized and un- cropped.

<comment><USER3> HN discussion is here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7163860](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7163860)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> AFAIK, Kingdom Rush is not IAP-free. Levels are easily beatable by buying power-ups. Without them, I found that after a level or two, it got very difficult, and I couldn't pass. I got the distinct feeling I was supposed to start buying power-ups (cheats, really) to win. Too bad, as it looked very solid otherwise.

I'd also add that Osmos is a fantastic game. Very soothing and fun. Frozen Synapse is a terrific game (turn-based, simultaneous tactical shooter (drop- down)), and I wish there were more like it.

<comment><USER5> Maybe Android is different, but about a year ago I beat Kingdom Rush on an iPad without purchasing any IAP over the course of a Sunday afternoon. Yes, later levels were hard, but definitely not unbeatable.

It's possible that they've changed the difficulty since in order to make people pay for cheats

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.loktar.gra...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.loktar.grapplehero)

</comment><comment><USER7> Pixel dungeon is one of those games that you need to sink 1-5 hrs into before it starts to get fun. Once you know the basics though it's super fun to play and very addictive.</comment>


Ask HN: Please (constructively) criticise + advise on my PL concept  - <AUTHOR>

I, like countless before, have taken up the rather insane task of writing 'yet another programming language'.
I sum up my current ideas here - http://www.codegrunt.co.uk/terse/
Please criticise/suggest ideas/tell me how awfully wrong and silly I am for suggesting such a thing/etc.
I am at an extremely early embryonic stage of this project which is likely to last some years, and I would really appreciate some input from the HN community.
I know I am potentially breaking a cardinal rule here in not having code to show as of yet; though I certainly do have a plan as to where to begin and how to move forward, it would prove intensely useful to have your high quality input right from the start.
Also, if you have any questions I would be more than happy to answer them.
Thanks in advance! <comment><USER2> Have you looked at Perl 6/Parrot? I read, or at least my faulty memory remembers vaguely, that Perl 6 syntax is defined by Perl 6, or something like that. From what I understood you'll be able to change its syntax easily (and that's what matter to my point).

Anyway, if what you want is easier DSLs, go check how Perl 6 is implemented in Parrot and if what it'll help you.

Okay, re-reading what I wrote before hitting submit made me realize I should add more details:

[http://blogs.perl.org/users/leon_timmermans/2010/04/why- perl...](http://blogs.perl.org/users/leon_timmermans/2010/04/why-perl-6-is- different.html)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perl_6_rules></comment>


Why are you in such a rush? - <AUTHOR> http://danshipper.com/why-are-you-in-such-a-rush

<comment><USER2> This is purely a hypothesis, but our generation has been raised to believe that failure is a bad thing, that must be avoided at all costs, rather than something that happens and is learned from.

Having a successful career meant going to a top college, which meant getting straight As in AP classes in High School. This mentality continues through college. Want to be a lawyer? The only way you are going to do that with any success these days is to go to one of about a dozen law schools, which getting anything less than a 3.5 GPA pretty well disqualifies you from. Want to be a doctor? It takes a similar GPA to get into med school.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm going to have to disagree to some extent in that "our generation" is not more risk-averse than past generations. Past generations had you graduate from college and success was often defined by working at one company for your entire life, possibly rising in the ranks slowly. Becoming a lawyer and becoming a doctor have a pretty set path -- if you're going to be doing open- heart surgeries I don't want you to keep "failing fast" (startup speak, I know). If anything, in this post-The Social Network world, even if some people's motives aren't there, I still think people are embracing entrepreneurship more than in many other previous generations.

<comment><USER3> I have started to wonder if entrepreneurship is becoming just another form of credentialing for businesses, like going to a big name college.</comment></comment></comment>


Pirate Apple App Store Innovates With 'Reverse BitTorrent' - <AUTHOR> http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-apple-app-store-innovates-with-reverse-bittorrent-101226/ <comment><USER2> > They do what they do because they believe that Apple's App Store is unfair > to consumers since it has no trial service or refund policy.

BS. They do this because they don't want to bother with paying a couple of bucks for an app. Plenty of apps are cracked, which actually offer a free version for testing. It's even factually wrong. Refund is possible…

<comment><USER3> It's interesting you mention that. I pointed that out today, and a new rule was implemented, saying that if a cracked application has a built in (fully featured) timed trial when it detects that it is a pirated version, then that check should remain intact and un-patched, otherwise the crack or request for the crack will be removed. Not perfect, but at least a step in the right direction (they didn't have an argument when it was brought up, because their reasoning is that people want a fair chance to try apps before paying, which this compromise allows).

I'd link to the thread on their forums about this new rule, but I'm assuming that most people in here are iOS developers who seem to be against this, so you probably don't have an account on their website and can't view the post.

<comment><USER4> I suspect doing this would run afoul of the Mac App Store guidelines. There is a bunch of language about trials, demos, licence keys, etc.

So... nice of them to say that, but I think it amounts to just lip service.

Similarly, why is Angry Birds available as a cracked download? There is a free version you can try out and decide if you like it. I call bullshit on the "try before you buy" axiom.

<comment><USER3> I agree that the whole "try before you buy" thing seems like bullshit, but let me confirm. The "new rule" I posted about above is referring to a case in which the application is a paid application that is cracked, but the application detects the crack and instead of limiting its functions or ceasing to work, it self-instills a "timed trial". Definitely would be annoying for developers to implement, but it will also make you kind of "untouchable" to the pirate/cracker community, since you as a developer are satisfying the "try before you buy" rule that they like to say they follow.

Angry Birds is different. Their "rule" and way of thinking applies to fully featured trials. Angry Birds offers not a timed trial, but I believe it instead only allows you to play the first level before paying. Not saying I fully agree with this technicality, but that is the way that the crackers are seeing it.

Hope this clears some things up.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How Homeownership Became the Engine of American Inequality - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/magazine/how-homeownership-became-the-engine-of-american-inequality.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=photo-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news <comment><USER2> So this article advocates for the removal of the mortgage interest tax deduction, because subsidizing home ownership leads to a larger economic divide between owners and renters. As a renter, I appreciate the intent, and I also appreciate any measure to simplify the tax code. That said, I also see compelling arguments in the deduction's favor. The sad truth is that most Americans are terrible at saving and in very poor shape for retirement[1]. And empirically, a home mortgage is perhaps the most successful mass-market forced-savings program in American society today, with much higher participation than tax-deferred retirement accounts[2]. So I see the advantage of tax policies that encourage people to buy their home.

[1] Time to get on my customary soapbox: spend less, save more! You'll be happier today, and much happier in the future.

[2] Back on the soapbox: If you're an American making a professional salary, have no debt and are not maxing out your IRA and 401(k) contributions, there will be a moment in your future when you do the retrospective calculation on how much more money you would have if you had done so and be very sad. :) Minimize regret, and save more today!

<comment><USER3> Regarding 2: I cannot wait to pay off my debts (scheduled in September!) and start putting money in IRA and 401(k) :) Every time someone asks me if I'm using the 401k I always feel sheepish answering "no... because I have debts with a higher interest rate than I'd get on the return..." Nobody seems to buy it but I've run the math again and again, it's just true.

<comment><USER4> I just personally disapprove of 401ks. For one, I remember the Great Recession. They bailed out the banks and left the little guy/gal to ruin. Contemporaneously, all those fancy market valuations stink of an economy about to tank, again. I value investing in stocks/bonds, but in current conditions I would not trust a 401k investment broker.

<comment><USER5> > For one, I remember the Great Recession. They bailed out the banks and left > the little guy/gal to ruin.

What do you mean by the "little guy/gal"?

It's true that the 2008 financial crisis only resulted in one banker going to jail, and he was not an executive. It's also true that the crisis only resulted in one bank getting indicted for criminal charges, and it was a small family-run bank in Chinatown with a stellar mortgage default rate (0.5%), and which reported activity that they discovered themselves, not a (metonymical) Wall Street conglomerate[0].

But if you're referring to people who own 401(k) accounts or receive pension funds, that's exactly who _was_ bailed out. "Let the banks fail" is a common refrain, except what that literally translates to is letting people's retirement funds get wiped out due to impropriety that they weren't involved with at all.

[0] They identified an employee who had falsified loan applications, and reported it to regulators after firing the employee. They were acquired of all charges brought to trial, and the prosecutors themselves later requested that the charges be dismissed, because they realized how ridiculous they were.

<comment><USER6> >bailed out the banks

In the 1930s, the bank stockholders were wiped out (equity set to zero), and they started over. In the 2008 crisis, bank stockholders were "bailed out". The value of their shares did not go to zero. The people who owned the bank before still owned it after. That is the difference between 401(k) accounts taking a 30% haircut and the bank stockholders retaining ownership of insolvent banks.

When the media talks about "too big to fail", they mean "too big to have stockholders wiped out and have the government recapitalize them". Supposedly it sounds too much like socialism. It is really regulatory capture at its finest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Here's the economist perspective:

 _Above all, it is inefficient. By subsidizing bigger, more expensive houses, the policy misallocates scarce savings away from productive investments that raise living standards through income- and job-creating innovations. It also makes our financial system more vulnerable: as we wrote in an earlier post, it encourages people to take on risks – in the form of large, subsidized mortgages – that they are not equipped to bear. In the recent crisis, risky mortgage debt was sufficient to put the entire financial system at risk._

[http://www.moneyandbanking.com/commentary/2015/6/3/why- the-m...](http://www.moneyandbanking.com/commentary/2015/6/3/why-the-mortgage- interest-tax-deduction-should-disappear-but-wont)

</comment><comment><USER8> When I crunched the numbers for the mortgage interest deduction it really didn't seem that compelling. It replaces the standard deduction so the first 12,500$ in mortgage interest does nothing for you.

After that it's just a minor reduction in taxable income and your tax burden is only reduced by a fraction of your mortgage interest. Not enough to cover the costs of maintaining a home and the tendency to consume more housing when owning vs renting.

At the high end sure we are talking real money. Maybe some day it will all be high end housing and then it will more substantial.

<comment><USER9> The MID barely cancels out my property taxes. Imagine if your investment accounts had to pay 1% tax every year based on its current worth even if you didn't realize any profits.

<comment><USER10> Imagine other investments supplying roads, police, fire, parks, and education (or at least a place to store kids during work day) for 12 years.

<comment><USER11> That argument can be made about the usefulness of taxes on anything.

<comment><USER10> Yes, I know. Taxes and social constructs such as governments ARE useful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This article is incredibly misguided for several reasons...

1.) If you truly are "rich," then you pay for your home in cash. You do not take out a mortgage on your house. Look at a distribution of loan amounts, the vast majority are around $600k. Very few are are >$1M [0]. Home loans are a product for middle-class Americans.

2.) A lot of rich people don't really pay income taxes like middle class people do. This is something a lot of people fail to understand. For example, you can be multi-billionaire and make $0 in given year and still be a multi- billionaire.

3.) If you're rich, do you really care about the $20k deduction you get every year? Probably not.

4.) Interest rates are so low that the deduction is becoming less relevant. For example, if you take out a 3.75% loan on $600k, your deduction really isn't that much, you get to deduct a whopping ~$20k, which even if the highest tax bracket, you'll get back ~$10k The deduction argument holds a lot more weight when interests rates are high.

But glad to see more attacks on the "bourgeoise middle-class" from the trusty NYTimes.

[0] [http://lenkiefer.com/2016/10/11/hmda- viz1](http://lenkiefer.com/2016/10/11/hmda-viz1)

<comment><USER13> This, 1,000x.

There are a lot of families making $1 million gross ($500K net) in income. They live in SF and NY. Both parents work 10 hour days. They live in an uncomfortably small house and have a $1 million mortgage. They can barely save for college after paying for childcare costs and the mortgage. But they're "rich." Yeah, right.

<comment><USER14> Not sure about your numbers here. A million dollar mortage today represents just under $5k per month or $60k per year. that's well under the recommended 30% for a $500k income. I have a hard time believing "They can barely save for college after paying for childcare costs and the mortgage" \- I have no idea what childcare costs are, but I would be shocked if they were in excess of $300K-$400k per year.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The mathematics of the MID are dumb; the optics are what sell it. If it lets someone making, say, $100K a year able to spend 30% more on a house payment, it also enables everyone else making 100K/year to pay that much more. So the same people compete for the same houses. Its main effect is to push up the commissions the agents pay and increase the amount of interest banks earn. It doesn't actually help the person buying the house.

Except that if you're in an increasing market it can push the sale price up.

A fetish for home ownership also screws up labor force mobility and reduces the granularity of variations in cost of living (some of which is discussed here). We'd be better off if large, publicly traded corporations owned most of the housing stock and provided it on long term lease (which is almost the situation today, but in the most complicated fashion possible). Then nobody would be "tied to the land".

<comment><USER15> A reply to my comment is marked dead and I can't revive it, but I can still reply to it:

> So, in effect, large, publicly traded corporations would then own the land, > as you describe it? You think that's a good idea?

I don't mean it "in effect" I mean it explicitly. The advantages are large and the risks addressable:

\- It spreads ownership around: the shareholders all own the housing stock the corporation owns. Thus they are buffered from the risks of a local market downturn.

\- It makes moving easier (if you live in a place that suffers, say, a huge factory closure, you can't sell your house since everybody else wants to do so as well).

\- It encourages a variety of housing types (single family to semi detached to large apartment blocks) and again buffers against, let's call it, "style risk").

And frankly when you have a large corp you can regulate some of the most egregious problems like fair housing rules, environmental and code issues, etc. Such companies are likely to be stable equities good for retirement funds etc similar to publicly traded utilities and less like airlines much less high tech businesses.

<comment><USER15> Wow, so this got down voted too. It's not inflammatory or off topic: how about responding to it instead?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Can anyone speak to how taxes are appropriated? Because in all of this talk about MID and perhaps how eliminating it might level the playing field, that only seems to make sense if that money is then appropriated to lower income individuals. I mean the government could simply take that surplus of taxes and shove it into the military for all we know, which in the end doesn't help anyone given our already exorbitant military spending budget.

I also wonder how much of this is personal accountability, and I say this as someone who has voted for and willingly pays additional taxes to provide low income housing opportunities in my community. I mean one of the families that was highlighted was a family of 6 that lives off of $50k/yr with only one parent working. Personally I can't imagine raising one child on $50k/yr in the greater Boston area, let alone 4, and knowingly not trying to have both parents employed. The wife even mentions that the husband was out of work for 8 months...were you not trying to fill in the gap? Even a minimum wage job should cover the cost of day care for their youngest child, who is too young for full-time schooling. I'm really trying to be on the side of some of these folks, but their stories and situations find it hard for me to empathize.

<comment><USER17> _> Even a minimum wage job should cover the cost of day care for their youngest child, who is too young for full-time schooling. _

In many markets, no it won't, if you can even find a daycare with an opening.

Anyway, this plan sounds like a net negative for the family unless the job can cover daycare PLUS commuting costs, work wardrobe, increased food costs (less time to cook from scratch), and the hassle involved with finding alternate care when any of the four kids are sick.

Some people consider the "humanity value" of having a parent at home to care for children to be worth the financial downside. That's their choice. By the way, most developed nations agree...

From the New Republic: *Among developed nations, the U.S. is now the only one that doesn't guarantee some kind of paid employee leave available for new parents." [http://bit.ly/2pZ03Ay](http://bit.ly/2pZ03Ay)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Removing the MID would make middle-to-upper-middle-class people poorer, and so reduce inequality that way, but would it help poor people at all? The net monthly cost of housing would stay the same, just shift the proportion of your payment that goes to the government vs the bank. It's true that it's regressive, but I'm skeptical that's a huge factor.

I think it would just help landlords, who would retain the ability to deduct mortgage interest as a business expense, and who would suddenly have both an influx of people kicked back into the renter pool and cheaper properties.

The real issue is lack of supply due to zoning and planning issues, and probably the cultural preference for single-family. Also the crazy-low rates.

Edit: To be clear, I'm not saying the MID is a great thing. If it didn't currently exist, I wouldn't be in favor of introducing it, and it was a huge windfall to whomever owned property when it was introduced. But what's done is done, and it would be pretty punitive to impose a negative windfall on every homeowner in America now. Maybe grant a one-time benefit when you change the tax code and let things sort themselves out from there?

<comment><USER19> I think adding an upper limit to MID would serve everyone well.

<comment><USER20> It is currently in-place at $1m of mortgage debt, and this fact was mentioned numerous times in TFA. It was mentioned in the article that Rep. Keith Ellison wants to move that number down to $500k.

<comment><USER19> No, I mean remove it entirely. If you're buying a $1m property you don't qualify for any MID. From the first $1 on.

<comment><USER20> Ah! It's a good thought. I would be concerned that it's regressive in a different way. As it is you already see people unable to afford certain cities. This will only compound the effect since regional differences in real estate markets trump the difference within.

It might work, but that is my reservation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Removing the mortgage interest deduction is the third rail of politics. Until most people are renters, I realistically don't see it ever going away, and is one of the few major benefits widely available [1] to the middle class.

The US is still reeling from a strong racial divide, particularly in regards to homeownership. As stated in the article, banks would literally redline neighborhoods that weren't white enough as late as the 80s [2]. But it was worse than that, my parent's house (Built in the 40s) in the East Bay came with old covenant documentation stating that no POC were allowed to live in the home unless they were servants! Thats how bad it was in some areas as prosperous as the Bay Area, and we're still feeling its effects.

[1] [https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/currenthvspress.pdf](https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/currenthvspress.pdf) [2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining)

<comment><USER22> It can however, be implicitly reduced. The rumours of the trump plan include doubling the standard deduction and removing the state tax deduction. Minus other major itemized deductions, this will reduce the MID usage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> "It is difficult to think of another social policy that more successfully multiplies America's inequality in such a sweeping fashion."

Tax deduction for employer-insured healthcare?

<comment><USER24> Carried-interest loophole?

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I don't know of anyone who bases a home purchase decision on the mortgage interest deduction. Seriously location, school district, cost of home, time to commute, yard size, cost of HOA are all more important to everyone I know. In fact it has never come up in conversations about home purchases with my peer group.

<comment><USER26> Sure it does. Think of it this way....

Targeting an all in home payment (principle, interest, insurance, taxes) of 1/3 your $100K income, so $30K or $2,500 per month.

In a world with MID, the ~$1500 in interest payment each month can be paid with pre-tax money. Assume you're in the 30% bracket, that means an extra $450 each month. Now you can afford a mortgage that costs effectively $3000 per month, which comes out to another $50K to $75K in purchase price (rough estimate assuming 4% interest rate).

<comment><USER27> > Now you can afford a mortgage that costs [more due to market distortions]

sounds like a great way to push up prices!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> > "It is difficult to think of another social policy that more successfully > multiplies America's inequality in such a sweeping fashion."

> "In 2015," "That same year, the federal government dedicated nearly $134 > billion to homeowner subsidies."

The article author isn't thinking of the Fed's various QE programs, which have subsidized lenders through the purchase of ~1.8 Trillion in mortgage-backed securities over a five year period after the financial crisis. MID is a drop in the bucket next to that.

If you treated the 1.8T as a single 30 year mortgage at, say, %3.5 interest, that's about a 10 Billion/month mortgage payment we're collectively carrying to bail out whoever sold those MBS to the Fed. That's about the same as the aggregate homeowner subsidies mentioned in the article.

</comment><comment><USER29> It seems many of these articles see tax deductions as the government giving money to tax payers, instead of the government agreeing to forcibly take less of a tax payer's income. It's an important distinction I rarely see made by the NYT.

<comment><USER30> What practical difference does this actually make?

<comment><USER29> They're conditioning a generation of taxpayers to see tax dollars as the government's money, rather than the taxpayers' money. This breeds economic entitlement and class warfare.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> You can go back further, start around the 1930s, and see housing policies/practices that didn't just drive inequality, but also segregation[1]. I was shocked (pardon my ignorance).

1 - [https://www.amazon.com/Color-Law-Forgotten-Government- Segreg...](https://www.amazon.com/Color-Law-Forgotten-Government- Segregated/dp/1631492853/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8)

</comment><comment><USER2> From the article: "She goes without a savings account and regularly relies on credit cards to buy toilet paper and soap."

Maintaining a relatively constant credit card debt (which is what it usually meant by "relying on credit cards" for routine purchases) is often more of a financial literacy problem than an income problem. It's obviously harder to get out of this trap on a low income, but if you're servicing your debt -- and if you're living off of credit cards long-term you have to be -- then your average income actually matches your average expenditures, including credit card interest charges. Someone in that situation would be so much better off if they could just pull together the few $1000's necessary to pay off the debt, and then start slowly accumulating savings from the money that would otherwise go towards interest payments. Unfortunately, the people I know who live on credit card debt seem willing to spend any small windfall that comes their way immediately, instead of using it to pay down those high-interest loans and start saving.

I have a brother-in-law who's in this situation. He makes $90k and has no dependents, but seems to have constant credit card debt that fluctuates between $10-$20k. That's an extra $1500-$3000 free and clear he could have every year by just paying off his cards and pocketing those interest payments, but for whatever reason he sees things differently and is totally content to carry that balance indefinitely.

<comment><USER32> But then you invite an onslaught accusing you of blaming the poor for their cyclical poverty, because they never had parents who taught and modeled sound financial behavior.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> It's a very complicated effect to model. Some random thoughts: Increasing home prices also means increasing property taxes and increasing insurance costs. Larger homes mean more expense to heat, cool, furnish, maintain, etc. Some of the tax savings can contribute to a larger mortgage and thereby drive higher home prices, but there are quite a few offsetting expenses.

Home equity is a contributor to the wealth effect. The wealth effect is a driver for consumer spending. Consumer spending is one of the more potent economic forces.

The mortgage deduction makes home ownership more affordable, but does not mean anyone can buy anywhere. Most people who rent can identify some other location in the US where they could afford to buy. They'd need a job that produces a sufficient income, and they'd need a down payment. But they need those with or without MID.

If we simply eliminated the MID, we'd see a period of volatility in real estate prices that would eventually settle out into a new equilibrium. But would that equilibrium be better overall for the economy? Would more people be able to own?

</comment><comment><USER34> I think I remember hearing something on Planet Money on if the MID was reformed or eliminated that house prices would drop basically across the board as an adjustment to that tax code change.

Certain homeowners with a mortgage could, almost overnight, go underwater with their home and on the other end homes could become more affordable under a smaller price point.

<comment><USER35> Surely the MID would need to be slowly phased out or just capped?

<comment><USER36> I would think so. Assuming it was politically feasible at all, it seems like it would need to be phased in. Or at least announced quite publicly that loans originated after a particular date could not have their interest deducted. It's not particularly fair to existing homeowners to eliminate the deduction after they've already purchased a house.

<comment><USER37> > Or at least announced quite publicly that loans originated after a > particular date could not have their interest deducted

That would probably cause a crash in the housing market and leave many homeowners underwater on their mortgages. Phasing it out gradually seems like a better approach to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Just a thought experiment: If home ownership was rare, almost everyone would be renting. The management company in addition to having to pay the bank loan would also have to make a profit.

To me that sounds tantamount to another tax on living. Anecdotally, owning in LA is cheaper than renting a comparably nice place. And that's irrespective of tax breaks.

<comment><USER39> The management company can probably manage and maintain a large number of properties more cheaply per-property than a homeowner can maintain a single property. So even if the management company is turning a profit, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad deal for the homeowner. Your argument is basically the same as "no one should ever hire a plumber because the plumber is turning a profit which makes it a bad deal."

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> MID is a nice subsidy but one really can't speak to economic inequality in housing with calling out use of local zoning regulation as cause of artificially low supply. A lot more people would be able to afford a house or at least have cheaper rent if it werent for the shenanigans going on with development/zoning reviews.

</comment><comment><USER41> If they wished to show the effects of the MID, I wish they would have started by comparing a renter vs. a homeowner that were in more similar circumstances.

Of course a family with 2 adults that are 10+ years older and waited a decade longer to have kids are going to be in a very different financial situation than a 26 year old single mom that makes 13% of the income of the couple. How does such an apples-to-oranges comparison remotely demonstrate that the MID is the "engine of American inequality?"

But perhaps the point is that the renter has no chance of escaping her current situation? The story of the homeowners proves that it is absolutely possible to do so. Recall that Asare grew up poor. While we don't know much about his wife's background, we do know that the two were also renters for years, before a nonprofit program helped them buy their first house.

</comment><comment><USER42> I've been wishing for the following: a compelling, interactive visualization of wealth transfers in the united states. Which states give/get more from the federal government? Which parts of the income spectrum give/get more in taxes/benefits? Is there something like that out there?

Yesterday there was the thing about county wealth disparities. Something like that but more general.

</comment><comment><USER43> I think about how recently and spectacularly housing has gone off the rails and I get so sad. What a complete disaster this is turning into.

</comment><comment><USER44> Is this the right TL;DR of this article? "Homeownership leads to inequality". "Inequality is bad". Therefore, "Home ownership is bad". Therefore we should make home-ownership as hard as possible. So when nobody owns a home, everybody is equal. Sounds about right.

<comment><USER45> The subsidy is enormous compared to the cost of other housing programs, and it almost all goes to well-off or rich people. So, no, your TLDR is not accurate, as it points to homeownership as an important wealth-building mechasism for those who can afford it. Furthermore, since the FHA was straight-up refusing to insure mortgages in black communities until 19-freaking-68, there is a strong historical effect of perpetuating racial inequalities by making only whites eligible for housing subsidies. We spend more than four times as much on mortgage interest than Section 8 housing subsidies.

TL;DR: The mortgage interest deduction is a welfare payment that you have to be rich (and until 1968, white) to get. Maybe we shouldn't spend $71 billion a year on it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Anyone able to find a link to the "widely cited 1996 study estimated that eliminating the MID and property-tax deductions would result in a 13 to 17 percent reduction in housing prices nationwide"?

</comment><comment><USER47> What's done in Europe?

<comment><USER48> In Norway here, many municipalities do not have property tax. Oslo implemented it recently, but only for property greater than a certain limit (and there is a push, of course, to remove it.) You can tax write-offs on interest from mortgages and also writeoffs and hire interest if you save in a BSU account (Bolig Sparing for Ungdom, or House saving for the young, which only applies to those 18-34.) Also, I think you can get any rental income written off if you rent a room or a basement apartment for 7000 NOK or less.

The fact is now, Oslo is experiencing what people are calling a housing bubble. Prices are also impossible given salaries (given conversion rates, they do not compare to the prices like in NY, for what it is worth.)

All these things tend to point to two directions: a) there is such a drive to own your own home here that it has done something to housing prices and b) they want people be maintain debt. Unlike the US, you can write off credit card and personal loan debt. It's a nice thing to be able to do but I'd presume that encourages a credit boom.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> FWIW, business rent is tax deductible, whereas personal rent is not. Another way to look at it is, personal rent is taxed, so it acts as an indirect consumption tax.

</comment><comment><USER50> > who generally fail to acknowledge themselves to be beneficiaries of federal > largess. "Today, as in the past," ... "most of the recipients of federal aid > are not the suspect 'welfare queens' of the popular imagination but rather > middle-class homeowners, salaried professionals and retirees."

This quote is extremely misleading! There are not given aid, they are just not charged as much tax.

When people think "welfare queens" and "federal aid" they are talking about people who pay negative tax - they get more aid then their tax.

Simply not taxing people at 100% of their income should not be considered "aid".

</comment><comment><USER51> I really don't get this deduction, it is basically rewarding people to take risk and makes it better to take a morgage than buy the home outright?

<comment><USER52> No. If you pay $X in mortgage interest, you get $X * Y% back, where Y% is your incremental tax bracket. That is _not_ a net win. It's just less of a loss.

<comment><USER53> if you put your money in something like crypto instead, you can come out ahead easily.

<comment><USER54> People are going to downvote you for mentioning cryptocurrencies, but your point is true even of much more conservative investment strategies. A home is not an investment, it is a depreciating asset. If you can afford to buy a home (in cash or on a mortgage), you will almost always come out ahead if you put the money into mutual funds and rent instead.

<comment><USER52> I question your "almost always".

If I buy a home, it's a depreciating asset. That is, I buy a home (via mortgage) for $300,000, and at the end of the mortgage, it's only worth $200,000. So I've paid $300K for an asset that's only worth $200K. But if I rented, at the end of the same time period, I have an asset worth $0, _and still have to pay to live somewhere_.

But of course it's not that simple. I can often rent for less than I can buy; I can invest the difference. If I don't live in the same house until I pay off the mortgage, I don't wind up with a place to live for free. If I downsize, I can wind up with a place to live for free _and_ a chunk of cash. And so on.

Let's take one specific example. Suppose I have little cash. I could borrow $300K and buy a house. At the end of 30 years, I have a house. I've paid, what, $2000/month in payments. At the end of the deal, I have an asset worth $200K, in which I also can live for free (but I can't do both - I can get the $200K, _or_ I can live in it for free). If I want the same deal putting the money into a mutual fund, I probably can't get it, because nobody's going to lend me $300K to invest in a mutual fund. The deal I can get is to rent for $1000/month, which gives me $1000/month to invest. At the end of the same amount of time, I have nothing to show for the $1000/month in rent except having not been homeless. For the $1000/month I've invested, I have... well, it's hard to say. What's your best guess about the rate of return of the mutual fund, and what's your variance around that best guess?

<comment><USER54> The number I've always heard is 4% after inflation, but that assumes no capital gains tax. Here is an article [0] that claims 1.9% per year over 30 years after accounting for taxes and inflation. Plugging $0 starting capital, $12,000 addition per year, and 1.9% compounded annually into the compound interest formula yields $480,000 after 30 years. Then keep in mind that owning a home obligates you to pay for property tax, maintenance, and insurance. Of course, there are still some cities where buying is a sensible option [1].

[0] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/2014/04/24/why-the- aver...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/2014/04/24/why-the-average- investors-investment-return-is-so-low/#5741bca9111a)

[1] [https://smartasset.com/mortgage/price-to-rent-ratio-in-us- ci...](https://smartasset.com/mortgage/price-to-rent-ratio-in-us-cities)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> I'd be willing to bet that if we eliminated the home mortgage interest deduction completely it would barely move the needle of what homes people choose to buy or the number of renters vs. owners.

I would love to see the numbers, though.

<comment><USER56> Its like municipal taxes. People don't get about the cost of the house itself. They only care about the monthly payment (or well, the total cost of ownership, since the deduction only directly affect you yearly).

This is kind of like municipal taxes. Take the city of Cambridge in Mass, which has an absurdly low tax rate. Compare it with some of the cities near by (eg Somerville). A similar property in a similar location will bring you down roughly the same amount per month. But in Cambridge, the value of the property itself is way higher, mainly because less goes to the city and more goes to the bank (and your equity).

People factor in the deduction when they check what they can afford. If you save 12k a year in taxes, you can pay 1000 bucks a month more, which translates in a significantly more expensive property. If the deduction goes away, property value will adjust accordingly (blips down at first, maybe go up a little slower for a bit until things even out considering inflation and stuff).

People who currently have a property and cut it a little close might be in trouble if they are not grandfathered, and people selling in the short term might be a little sad.

<comment><USER36> I have no doubt that some folks get out a calculator and plan out their budget based on the deduction, but I think many do not. Anecdotally, myself and the people in my group of friends who also own houses, we budgeted for the mortgage payment irrespective of tax benefits and just smiled on tax day. I really try to avoid as much as possible relying on outside variables like tax deductions when planning my budget. I go in conservatively and then appreciate the benefits while they last.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Why is it somehow bad that people who are investing their money in the place where they live - thus becoming more responsible citizens than renters who can just pack up and leave - are getting a small bonus for it?

<comment><USER58> Please provide proof to back up your claim that this makes them "more responsible citizens".

<comment><USER36> Although the parent poster was being a little inflammatory with the choice of words, there _is_ a bit of an interesting point there. Is there a benefit to society in general from people owning homes instead of renting? High portability can benefit the renter, but a bigger commitment to the neighborhood perhaps benefits the rest of us? Maybe enough to incentivize?

<comment><USER20> High portability might also benefit society. We hear a lot about families in the midwest who are locked into their employment markets which are declining.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: I am 23. What's next? - <AUTHOR> There are times when I find myself at work blazing away at development or outside training for a race and stop to ask myself, is this is it. Not like is this what I am doing for the rest of my life, but the more general question of is this what people work towards all their life. Now I am being a bit vague here, but hear me out and let me explain. It helps to have some background on my story so hold on...
I grew up by the city in the suburbs where you had your typical gang per neighborhood and cops cruising around the area at all times. Drug deals were a regular thing during class time and it was likely that if you followed in your parents footsteps you would be pregnant at 17 and potentially graduating high school with a drug problem. Most of my friends fell victim to drugs in one form or another, so I learned to steer clear of most of that stuff. Plus my dad told me he would kill me if he ever found out (little did I know he had his own problem with it all).
My parents split apart, but before my dad rolled out he set a solid work ethic in me. That or I realized home wasn't the greatest place to be around and decided it would be best to make money while disconnecting from my "family". I started work at 14 changing oil and found the ability to make my own money was the most liberating experience ever. I made a point to ditch the required high school work forms and limits and cut a deal with my boss, 30+ hours and I would make it work. During the summer I put in well into 50 hours as much as I could and enjoyed life.
Fast-forward a couple years and I am in high school goofing around in a networking class. I was told before joining the class that graduating from this school would land me 16 college credits and 19 if I passed the certification. Call it what you will, but I found high school to be a joke, so I went to college at night starting in 11th grade and decided I would make the whole school thing go by as quickly as possible. During this time I continued to work full time, and volunteered at some tech startup doing Internet sales. I also did the usual teenager activities like going to parties, hacking companies in the city, doing graffiti and running from the cops.
Jump ahead 1 year after high school and I am working for a government contractor building circuit boards on million dollar contracts. I graduated high school early, bent the rules as much as possible and was the proud owner of an A.A.S degree in network technology. I later moved on to doing network engineering, but remained with the company for a year before making my next big leap. Meanwhile at home I was planning on moving out because the situation was only getting more annoying.
I realized that finishing my degree was critical to making any money, so I made that my top goal, but knew I would be bored doing nothing but school. You have to understand that at this point I had pushed myself far beyond my normal means and what once was difficult was now the "norm". Sleep wasn't required and all I wanted to do was work. I decided to go to a local college that took in all my transfer credits where a lot of the courses were online. I managed to re-write parts of my degree and pull 18 credit semesters while working the 50 hours as a security engineer while still having some sort of life.
I graduated early with my B.S in Information Assurance and managed to get a couple speaking engagements in the middle of that. I spoke at one of the biggest hacker conferences in Vegas, on career panels with college professors and offered my advice to those who asked or listened. Fast-forward some more and I have written articles for magazines, been offered crazy jobs with crazy money and have vacationed in some pretty cool spots. I have since fixed some of the issues with my family and feel as if I am becoming a more understanding person in regards to substance abuse and mental illness (things I have dealt with a lot).
Life and work are great and just in this year I have been to Canada, the Bahamas, Europe, California and Vegas. A lot of these were for speaking, some for vacation, but all of them great trips. When I got back I would tell my family how things went or what was on my mind. In some cases I wasn't too excited over everything and the comments my family made were more or less that they wish they had my life. It wasn't that I wasn't happy with all of this stuff, but it made me wonder if this is what people worked for. Was what I had someone else's dream?
I work at a university now doing forensic investigations and malware analysis. I could be making a hell of a lot more money else where, but I enjoy the people I work with and what I do everyday. I often stay late and base a lot of my life around doing things in the general area. Because I am staff, I get tuition benefits and while I thought I would never go back to school, I am thinking now it may be worthwhile since it's free. I am not sure if I want to focus on technology or if pursuing a degree in something else would be more of my thing. Either way, I think it would be nice to experience a little bit of the college scene I missed out on by rushing before.
Outside of work I race road bikes, workout a lot, am not too social, but keep enough friends around not to be terribly bored or alone. I go on several trips throughout the year and keep life interesting through funny experiences and the general mentality that life is about stories, not salaries. I know it is who I am to continue working like I do and to do everything I try to the fullest. I am excessive, easily bored and always seeking some challenge. I am far from being old or done, but there are times when I wonder if I will burn out. Will I work too much? Should I be doing more? Should I be doing things differently?
I guess the last thing I would point out is that I recognize I don't know everything and that I haven't tried everything. There is still a lot more I could be doing and a lot I could change both around me and within me. The "being a better person" aspect seems to take longer than changing what I'm surrounded by, so I hope this doesn't come off like a poor me, help me out sort of posting. It should be instead interpreted as someone who has done a decent job for being 23 and wants help knowing how to make life even more awesome. Hopefully a few people will read this and understand the sort of personality I have which I think helps in these questions. <comment><USER3> First of all, people frequently do those walls of texts when they have no idea of who they are, they just did everything that they were told so, so they are like a puppet. Making money is not hard when you are puppet. Here on HN there's a lot of paul graham's puppets, so they somehow spend their lifes creating CRUD apps...

Don't take me this the wrong way.... but I think you are full of shit. You are those kind of people(very common in HN's community also) that HAVE to think you are somehow special. You think that life is something you explore and conquer. Your life made you think like that and now it's time for you to release yourself from your stupid destiny, just like you did with the drugs.

Start reading more philosophy and literature... I know you are probably goal driven and there's absolutely no real goal in "reading". You just get to see things differently, with a diferent perspective and that will really help you.

Also, don't forget that days go by really fast, someday you will die. God might not exist and that might be your last chance to be yourself, so... who are you?

And please, make real friends and get a girlfriend: you will see how simple working and making money is, something hard is to make a person happy everyday(your friends, your girlfriend, the ones that you love...).

<comment><AUTHOR> I wouldn't agree that I need to be some sort of "special" person or anything like that. I do view life as something to explore and to enjoy. In my opinion they sort of go hand-in-hand, but you may disagree. I don't believe in any sort of destiny and never had a problem with drugs, it was everyone around me who did.

You are right that I am very goal driven, but I try and read at least 50 books a year. Most, if not all the books I read tend to be non-fiction, so I may benefit from actually opening up a classic or well written novel every now and then. For now I enjoy reading memoirs about the lives of ordinary people and the different issues they face. Those sort of things give me a different perspective on how to approach certain topics going forward and I find value in that.

I agree with your last one, but to seek out people in that way is not always the best form of doing things. Instead, I go out and try new activities. I make friends through those things. I talk with people when I am out and if something happens then great. If not, then it doesn't worry me too much.

I appreciate your response and despite it coming off a little hostile, there is value in it.

<comment><USER3> So you are basically trying to get advice on something and tell me afterwards "I'm this, this and that."

I really think that you should reflect more and relax, you are in a good position comparing people at your age. That is good... but I feel that you care more about counting the countries that you've visited(like 140 countries!) instead of the moments you had there. I do abstract a lot of things like that too, but sometimes its time to enjoy the moment.

Well, I hope you find your way and be happy(or get out of boredom)! :D

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm willing to bet you've never tried any "mind-altering" drugs - <USER2> included. Am I right? If I am right, don't ever try them!!!

My feeling is that you're addicted to something else - and I would suggest that "something else" is much better for you than the alternative.

Is this it? Yes it is! Well... yes and no! You might be able to conquer the world - wouldn't that be great? :-) Your challenge isn't in what you achieve, it's in what you get satisfaction from. When you conquer the world, when you make your first million, when you do x, y or z... - that "high" will eventually leave you void, much like the void you've already defined, both within yourself and within your family. Your challenge will be finding peace and pleasure in the normal moments of life. Do you relate to or understand what I'm saying?

I wish you the best! Not in your achievements, not in your work, not in your studies - but in your pursuit of happiness for the rest of the moments that sit in the vast space between your low points and your high points.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have smoked weed, but all it did was make me think like a normal person (or at least how I think a normal person would think - no racing from subject to subject or building complete hypothetical decision trees in your head). I have and still partake in a few drinks, but with a focus on taste; Microbrewed beer and good wine is more of what I like.

I know exactly what you are saying and it is funny how you managed to sum up everything in my post to come to that answer. While I am not depressed, I do have points of being in a rut where I can't seem to find the happiness I would have thought to be associated with what I was working towards. Even when I do find the happiness in things, I tend to side with my mind in saying that it is not good enough. I can always be a couple seconds faster on the bike, always a bit smarter in how I structure my code, maybe find someone who is more of what I like, etc.

Last year I made the goal of accepting things for what they are and not what they could be. Reaching this will be a life long battle and one that tends to move much like changing myself and that is slow. This year was focusing more on my family and realizing that I need to accept that I can't change who they are. I can't make them better or worse, they are just themselves and I can now accept that. I imagine other parts of my life will fall in line the same way, but it requires a lot of effort.

I appreciate your kind words and your very accurate summary.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> 1\. Take more risks.

2\. Don't be afraid to fuck up and keep going, provided you learn why you fucked up and don't do it again.

3\. A good sign that you've done something really worthwhile is that at least one person is pissed off at you. A good sign you've done something really stupid is that a lot of people are pissed off at you.

4\. Nobody has a clue about anything. Even the super popular speakers at DefCon. If someone tries to tell you they have a clue, it's because they haven't yet realized they don't.

5\. Follow your instinct. If you are bored or unhappy, figure out what's causing it, and change that. Oh, and take more risks.

</comment><comment><USER6> Love. Love yourself, fall in love, love what you do. Pick whatever order works best for you.

It sounds like you've figured out quite a bit about yourself at a surprisingly early age, had a chance to see a decent amount of the world already, and have had to grow up very quickly. In any case, find something external that really, truly matters to you. Know thine self, etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> Figuring myself out is the best and scariest part of all this. It should get even more interesting if I manage to shoot for the degree in social psychology.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm a programmer and recently (in the last couple of years, I'm 33) come to the realization that nothing that I do during my day job is an actual, tangible _thing_ , nor will it be around 5, 10 or 20 years from now. The thing I spend most of my waking life doing is flipping some bits on a spinning magnetized piece of metal. Is that really all there's going to be to life? So I've worked on two things. Things that permanent and will actually be around 10, 20 or 100 years from now.

First, I'm a fairly proficient woodworker in my spare time in the garage (started about three years ago). Building a dresser from scratch involves a lot of the same problem solving challenges that I face as a programmer, but I'm building an actual tangible _thing_ that exists in the real world and can't be destroying by a strong magnet. I feel like I'm actually making a place for myself in the world and doing something useful. I might build a chair that someone lives with for 30 years and then gives to their children, who then give it to their children. It's still makes me smile to think about.

Second, I've had a son and will hopefully have another in the next couple years. As sappy as it sounds, when you really think about it, having children _is_ the meaning of life. We, as humans, are just our DNA's way of making more DNA. That's kind of depressing but also extremely amazing and awesome. And there are millions of kids out there that no longer have parents for whatever reason, so if you can't have your own then please please consider adopting. Any of the crap you do in your life, work or travel or building houses, none of it will mean as much to you as raising a kid. Again, sappy, especially at 23 when you probably couldn't care less about kids. But damn, the fact that you have another human being who you can teach about the world and will smile when you walk in the door...it's unbelievable. And the stuff I teach him about the world now will be with him the rest of his life. I've been a part of something meaningful that will outlast me.

tl;dr Find a hobby (or job) that actually has some permanence in the world, and find someone to love and raise a family with.

<comment><USER8> I had that same realization. Except I'm 21. It got me kind of bummed at, all the things I create for the web, aren't tangible. At least yet. Who knows - maybe some day they will be?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Hey, i'm in my 20's also :)

It may seem normal to you and not a big deal since you kind of dismissed it but you did describe a childhood full of turmoil (gangs, drugs, parental issues). You might want to talk to a mental health professional about these things. Your childhood environment could have made a negative impact you're not yet aware of.

Other than that, try focusing more on doing things you believe is useful to the next generation. Feeling valuable to the next generation is hard wired into humans but often times ignored causing the well known mid-life crisis. You may have just gotten there a lot faster than the average person.

The things you do to aren't important it's the way you think about what you do. For example, most people do this by raising kids and feeling responsible for the process. Another option is to become a mentor to one/many people and share your wisdom and experience with others. Pretty much anything works even things generally considered superficial as long as you believe internally you're doing it to serve others.

</comment><comment><USER10> I'm 24 and I asked this question when I was 23 and got a lot of responses: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1474094>

Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER11> You probably just need to aim a lot higher than what you're shooting for right now, is my opinion.

Does this quote not get you pumped up?

"The computer programmer is a creator of universes for which he alone is responsible. Universes of virtually unlimited complexity can be created in the form of computer programs." - Joseph Weizenbaum

How about you, let's say, write a computer game that will make people stay up all night, or an interactive fiction novel that they can't put down? But don't give up because it wasn't hard enough or whatever.

</comment><comment><USER12> You seem to have a lot of stuff figured out. You stayed out of trouble. You have a hardcore work ethic. But if you're in doubt, you can always work less and do something else. And if that doesn't work, go do another thing. At one moment, you'll figure out what do you want to do. Have you ever tried to play guitar?

<comment><AUTHOR> It is the something else that I am unsure of at the moment. Occasionally I get the thought to head to Africa and help build networks or begin writing some sort of book, but those things take planning. One thing I need to do is locate the patience I have seemed to lost in the past years. I have never tried guitar, but it seems like one of those things that requires patience so it would fit well. Plus, a part of me has always wanted to play the acoustic version of karma police.

<comment><USER12> I see. Guitar is something that requires patience, for sure. Someone can play well enough to entertain drunk friends with one year of half-assed practice. To play on a stage, it's way more time of serious practice. It'll hurt, sometimes it'll take days to see improvements. Rehearse and constant practice are the key factors to thrive. If you're lacking patience, get a tutor. He will help you build momentum. The same 'process' is valid for other moments you may be lacking patience. Get a friend you trust or a psychologist (they help well-adjusted people too), tell them about your projects, and every time you're losing patience, call them and tell them, and listen to them. They should reassure your progress, and help you get back on track.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It all changes when you have kids...or at least it will if you want it to.

</comment><comment><USER14> 24.

;-)</comment>


My Small Bug, Big Consequences - <AUTHOR> http://digg.com/playable_web_games/Robokill_is_the_best_game_in_the_history_of_flash_games?t=20656642#c20656642

<comment><AUTHOR> All I can say is, Oops!

Hundreds of people exploited the loophole before I closed it. Unfortunately items are not stored on the PayPal server, even their encrypted urls still supply the price, so all I could do is check whether the right amount of money has been paid. I couldn't use the encrypted URLs because Flash doesn't support popping up a window with a link that long!

Live and learn, I guess.</comment>


Starry and the first step back to the Open Internet - <AUTHOR> https://blog.starry.com/our-statement-on-net-neutrality/?mc_cid=c0ff573e0e&mc_eid=6bbf686c3a <comment><AUTHOR> This is what's going to happen now that Ajit Pai and his band of dick heads are trying to go back to the 90s. Their next step will be to try to kill off these services. In the end, they (Ajit Pai, Verizon, Comcast, etc) will all lose. It's just a matter of months or a year. And, when they lose their customer's connection to the Internet their companies will become toast. I look forward to it. Along with Pai being escorted out of the FCC office on the day he's fired!</comment>


Be brilliant at the basics (of Business) - <AUTHOR> http://www.davidairey.com/business-basics/

<comment><USER2> "More important than great offices, a cool logo and a function spreadsheet is a sustainable, differentiated, profitable idea on which to build your business."

What is meant by a "function spreadsheet"? Is it literally referring to a spreadsheet (like Excel or whatever)? I took this to mean use the simplest tools you can at the start, in contrast to focusing on your business process instead of your business.</comment>