Steve was one of the best product guys this world has seen. The same qualities that this article complained over, were the qualities that also allowed him to provide the world with all these gadgets. There's two sides to every coin, and no one's perfect.
Once again, this is the product of unclear thinking, not distinguishing between correlation vs. causation. This is not a hard concept to grasp, so I'm really disappointed in mankind that we let this mistake happen so often.
Since gender equality is such a hot and sensitive topic, I can see how it incentivized people to jump to such conclusions.
It's not a zero sum game. As more mainstream consumers learn about and start using Square, it will undoubtedly give a great boost to small businesses using Square as well.
Losing a decent chunk of change? How can they lose something they wouldn't otherwise have had at all? It's only normal to assume that they have special terms for Starbucks, but it doesn't mean they're losing anything.
Unless you mean that Square is providing the service at a loss to Starbucks?
Doesn't LTV stand for "[customer] life time value," i.e. the amount of money you'll be able to generate from a customer during his/her time with your business, and not "long term value"?
I agree with their points, but overall the article is just a little bit "off". Maybe it's the bit about the integral. If you had a customer pay you $1 every month, and they on average stayed for one month, your LTV is $1, not the integral of 1*x (1/2).
I've always seen customer lifetime value abbreviated as CLV. That being said, I've never heard of 'long term value', and I think the author is mistaking this term for CLV.
Customer lifetime value is something calculable, even if crudely -- its amortized revenue per customer as retention approaches zero. "Long term value" is more of a concept.
As someone who's recently made the move to China (Hong Kong, and not teaching English), I can say it's a great way for native English speakers to jump start their careers and get responsibilities much faster than at home.
Hong Kong is a bit easier getting used to due to a free internet, less pollution, and stricter food safety laws. But I guess there are more opportunities on the mainland.
How does your salary in Hong Kong compare to your previous jobs? Is it at least on the same binary order of magnitude?
Grad jobs in Australia offer at least the minimum wage of $40k per year. Note that I haven't seen a single job offering only $40k. The very very low end of what I've saw is $45k+. I've heard of offers of over 100k for really talented graduates.
I asked around in Hong Kong, and graduates there are only offered around HKD$15000 a month. That is only $25k per year.
I haven't mentioned the long working hours, expensive rent, and relatively expensive cost of living compared to the salary.
Top paying jobs are with international banks. You'll make pretty much the same here as you will working for them in London or NY (so, 100K+ yr, for example). From there, salaries slide to ridiculously low levels. (EDIT: it's my understanding that, due to the current economic climate in Europe, most of these banks aren't hiring).
It's a pretty bad place for any passionate programmer to end up. There's an overall lack of passion, risk is avoided at all costs, and creativity doesn't exist. It isn't just in the banks either...there's something culturally different.
I've never worked in a factory..but in my mind, it's inbetween working for a real startup and working on a factory floor. Which explains the long hours you mention...when you work 10hours every day, it's hard to be super passionate and creative.
As for cost of living. Rent is expensive. If you want to eat at a fancy $300-a-plate restaurant every night, you can (and probably a different one for many months). You can buy fancy clothes and expensive jewelry. But, if you are willing to, Hong Kong lets you live cheaply (rent aside). Remember that taxes are ~16%, with no sales tax and no capital gains taxes. If you make $150K, your take home is ~125K.
Right, sorry, I knew that. I'm Canadian and things are a bit different. Canada and Hong Kong don't have a tax treaty, which could be horrible for me. However unlike the US which requires that you pay taxes for 7 (??) years after leaving, Canada lets you declare yourself as a non-resident and forgo paying any Canadian taxes going forward.
You need to be very careful (hire a good accountant) because you don't want to owe back taxes + interest + penalties if you ever come back, but it's doable.
I've heard of people leaving Canada for 10 years, not paying any Canadian taxes...grossing millions..coming back and having the Canadian Revenue Agency (CRA) say that, in their eyes, they were always residents and having to pay 500K+ in taxes/interest/penalties. (a big part of it is how many ties you keep in Canada, if you own a house, or your wife/kids stay in Canada, those are "primary" ties, and make you a Canadian-resident for tax-purposes).
> However unlike the US which requires that you pay taxes for 7
Not 7, "infinite". You can be a US citizen by birth, leave when you are a week old never to return, and owe tax on everything you earn in your lifetime above the ~$93K/yr limit.
The only way to completely avoid the US claiming taxes is to renounce your citizenship... although if you do that for economic reasons they can legally prevent you from ever visiting again (although I understand that's rarely if ever actually applied)
It's a mess if you're a US profesional with any aspirations of working abroad. On the other hand, our billionaires tend to stay put rather than fleeing to Switzerland so the policy does have its desired effect I guess.
The issues with the CRA are pretty much the same all over the world: people try to game the system by claiming they moved away while "really" living in their home country. If you make enough money away from your home tax authority expect to show some documentation. Even in the US this happens with people who claim to have moved to a low-tax state while still maintaining a residence in a different state; you need to prove you weren't within the state's borders for more than X days or the tax man will want their take. Nothing unusual about Canada in that regard.
Once upon a time if you stayed out of Canada for 2 years, you were pretty much guaranteed to be exempt. Now it's more subjective.
Nevertheless, I agree it isn't bizarre or unique. The lack of a tax treaty with Hong Kong is unfortunate though. It's not even on the table from what I understand.
I work in marketing and get the same salary as in my home country Sweden, but with accommodation and food paid. I wasn't hired as a local. It really depends on what you do though; my banker friends make waaaay more.
