But almost all game developers sell their software (or "in-game purchases" for the F2P games), because video games have no other viable business model. A good video game is often involves massive work on its code, art, music, gameplay, and story. Aside from asking for donations, how do you imagine such workers will be compensated for their efforts?

"Hundreds of hours of experience"? Wow, they're not even claiming to look for qualified candidates, are they?

As far as finding work goes, you're probably correct. I have, however, met a fairly large number of good developers who are 10x more productive than an average programmer, but have difficulty getting paid what they're worth.

I'm letting him know the build server is offline, and reminding him that I'm still waiting for my VPN access.

My point is that we've really lowered our standards in terms of what is a "good" wage or not. 40 years ago it was practically unheard of to be unable to support a family with a single income from a blue collar job, and now you're considered to be doing well to be able to buy a starter home after saving for 5 years working as an engineer with a university degree. Everything is relative, I know, but I'd gladly trade in my fancy tablets and internet for affordable housing and decent schools for my kids.

It is until you try to buy a house. Then you're in for a rude awakening.

Time to start giving your friends one time pads on physical media.. a few GB worth should provide plenty of encrypted chat time, though you will have to get the key to them in the first place.

My bet is it has more to do with social mobility and education than any racial element. A rich white person is much more likely to associate with a rich black person than a poor white person.

I'm a big proponent of the Nordic system, which constitutes primarily of emphasizing social freedom, well-regulated markets, and low income disparity. This is achieved not by adherence to political ideology, but rather by analyzing empirical evidence and employing the scientific method to determine the best ways in which to promote these goals. Take healthcare for instance -- Nordic countries have publicly funded universal health care not because a bunch of people voted in a bunch of freebies for themselves, but because it was cheaper and more effective than private health care. Likewise, they went with restrictive immigration policies because they can't maintain these benefits if they have an outside group willing to work for cheap. It's not about right or left (though it mostly leans left, since that's where the best benefit to cost ratio usually lies), it's about creating a high quality of life for the people of your country.

We should allow it, honestly. There's no compelling reason not to.

It's not, it's just much more prevalent in India because the culture there has not attached a negative social stigma to being a tech worker.

"The problem with enforcing property rights is that its always at someone else's expense. Why should I pay for police who only stop me from taking the nice stuff my neighbor has?"

*Everything* is at someone else's expense in some way or another, because contrary to what you believe, no man is an island. So put down Atlas Shrugged and go learn about life.

No, it doesn't. For the sake of argument, let us assume that the probability of global thermonuclear war in 2014, 2015, and 2016 is .001, .0001, and 0 (zero chance) respectively. So our chance of surviving 2014 is 1.0 - 0.001 = .999. Our chance of p(2015) = p(2014) * p(2015) = .999 * .9999 = 0.9989001, which is less than the .999 of p(2014). Even if p(2016) is 100% chance for survival, 1.0 * 0.999 * 0.9999 = 0.9989001, which means our chances of surviving have not increased, they have merely not decreased. And as long as the chance is non-zero (and it always will be), the chance of our survival for n+1 years is always lower than the chance of our survival for n years.

And non-smokers will?

Mod parent up. I wish American libertarians could mentally grasp the fact that "liberty" is meaningless in the absence of economic security.