Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by SirensOfTitan 882 days ago
Section 174 is the feedback loop that will eventually wipe out a lot of the strategic advantages in the US tech industry--it'll take a bit since these levers are often controlling very slowly changing stocks, but it's ultimately a disastrous update. People should be screaming about it from the rooftops. Not only will it dissuade people from starting companies, but it'll drive companies that could've otherwise been bootstrapped into institutional VC arms, will slow growth for everyone, and will (and is) affect peoples' capacity to find good jobs.
2 comments
kelseyfrog 882 days ago
Can you connect the dots for me back to OP's application response rate? It's not exactly clear how 174 relates specifically to response rate.
link
mattbrewsbytes 881 days ago
It closed a tax rule that allowed companies to write off software salaries as R&D spend, something like now companies have to treat that differently for taxes so they now will owe more taxes. Connecting the dots people are concluding that the tax rule change means companies are doing less hiring.

Interest rates are a larger factor in my mind and it takes much longer for increases to them to have an impact on the economy. Its not like the Fed jacks up rates and immediately every loan procured automatically is impacted. Corporate and related loans are probably much longer term, like 5-10 or even 25 years. The economy doesn't move in hot-take twitter time.

I would state that if a tax rule upends your business model, you probably weren't going to be a cash flow positive and profitable business anyways. Companies that keep going after seed rounds with the goal of acquisition or some hockey stick growth dependent on virality statistically don't pan out. And I think pan out is a good word usage here, referencing people panning for gold.

link
kelseyfrog 881 days ago
If companies are doing less hiring, how does it change response rates?

My naive assumption says that they would post less jobs, sure, but why specifically response rates? I think you're making an argument for "there is change in hiring behaviors," but that's a much weaker argument than "this is how it affects response rates."

link
BillSaysThis 881 days ago
More candidates since there are fewer openings.
link
kelseyfrog 881 days ago
oh, duh! thank you for walking me through the steps.
link
StreetChief 881 days ago
Sounds like the rich will get richer...
link