A regular person who happened to be smart (and possibly hardworking) has to choose between $100k regular software engineering job at a company with low social impact or $400k at a cream-of-the-crop company, which will further add on the specialist's value by the virtue of having this company's name on their CV. This is a life-changing amount of money which compounds over the years, where a person can genuinely start thinking about early retirement, especially if they don't like the corporate culture.

Why should society allow individuals have to make such difficult choices between being principled or rich? It's the government's job to control. And I don't mean salary control, but to understand why there are such differences and work to mitigate them.

▲

in_absentia 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Having principles is about making choices that are difficult, not about making choices that are easy. "I didn't really want to build a panopticon, why didn't the government stop me" is not a particularly sympathetic position to take (even if true).

	▲	iugtmkbdfil834 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think you are simplifying it a tad bit. Having principles means having principles. On principle, I don't allow some types of devices in my household. That decision is not difficult, but it is simple. The decision parent describes is not difficult in the sense an individual may easily arrive of what is 'right', but it is absolutely not simple to disentangle oneself.. especially once you do have some year history to back you. Parent was pointing to that. Your dismissal is easy, but it simply shows you never had to choose.