I acknowledge that win/loss is arguable. It invokes ethical cans of worms that I'm reluctant to open here. In theory, the dominant demographic at HN are from affluent countries, so the maxim that there are endless folk from poorer countries who'd be willing to come and do our work for a lot less - could apply to most of us, in similar fashion. Would we call that 'a win'? Highly subjective, obviously. And dependent upon other factors such as opportunity cost, the question 'is there something economically better we could be doing instead'?
I suppose my point could be construed as highlighting the significant factors of power and inertia in regulatory systems, as pertaining to environmental and economic setups.
Regarding your point about Voting Out - it assumes that the major political parties differ in their stance on this one matter. If both/all are subject to the same lobbying, then whichever is elected will see the status quo remain.
I had a friend who used to FIFO to/of one of the offshore NZ fishery Islands cos they wouldn't get out of bed for less than $300 an hour and he could make enough in 3 months to have the other 9 months off. Cost of living there is extreme, $4.50 for a bottle of milk on the mainland but $12 there. The islands economy is export based.
> Would we call that 'a win'? Highly subjective, obviously.
Win for whom?
I'm a developer from not an affluent country, working remotely for an american company (although for an american level of pay, my employer is quite awesome). So it's definetly a win for me.
I suppose my point could be construed as highlighting the significant factors of power and inertia in regulatory systems, as pertaining to environmental and economic setups.
Regarding your point about Voting Out - it assumes that the major political parties differ in their stance on this one matter. If both/all are subject to the same lobbying, then whichever is elected will see the status quo remain.