Seeing as how many of said regulations are imposed by congressional law, good luck with that. Also, giving away the grift by saying "we want to make these permanent". Gotta hand it to the Republicans, they're pretty damn open with their power grabbing grifting.
Also also also literally any rule change, including deregulation, requires a long series of procedures including a lengthy comment period. So much if this work won't even be done before next January.
Also also also literally any rule change, including deregulation, requires a long series of procedures including a lengthy comment period. So much if this work won't even be done before next January.
Seeing as how many of said regulations are imposed by congressional law, good luck with that. Also, giving away the grift by saying "we want to make these permanent". Gotta hand it to the Republicans, they're pretty damn open with their power grabbing grifting.
Is it really a rule if there’s nobody to enforce it?
Seeing as how many of said regulations are imposed by congressional law, good luck with that. Also, giving away the grift by saying "we want to make these permanent". Gotta hand it to the Republicans, they're pretty damn open with their power grabbing grifting.
Is it really a rule if there’s nobody to enforce it?
Yes, because companies that have adhered to the rule (which may require investing in new capital) can sue.
Seeing as how many of said regulations are imposed by congressional law, good luck with that. Also, giving away the grift by saying "we want to make these permanent". Gotta hand it to the Republicans, they're pretty damn open with their power grabbing grifting.
Is it really a rule if there’s nobody to enforce it?
Yes, because companies that have adhered to the rule (which may require investing in new capital) can sue.
And regulatory capture being cheaper then actual competition runs both ways. It's (probably) easier and cheaper to make the government stick with the regulation then to change your business to accommodate the deregulation.
+11
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
It's not entirely comparable, but the big law firm my wife used to work at would solely recruit from the Ivies because they were trying to become more of a white shoe firm. Which was somewhat ironic because the biggest rainmaker at the firm went to UIUC forever ago. And maybe if you were valedictorian from there or U Mich they'd consider you, but that's basically it and only valedictorian. Being top of your class at Wayne State or Kent or Northwestern or anywhere else that also have sterling law schools didn't matter because it has the wrong seal. Even if you were a better lawyer than someone middling at Harvard. This wasn't so much the case for lateral hires, but it still makes a hurdle by effectively outsourcing your recruitment to the admissions office.
The legal profession has been in almost violent upheaval since a) the recession basically killed recruiting for awhile and b) AI has started to significantly take up tasks mostly given to interns and new highers (e.g. doc review). So yeah, a lot of firms that aren't just a shingle or servicing a specific locality or whatever have basically been extremely picky for the last decade or so.
My fear is that the move to Work From Home will soon become the move to send these jobs to cheaper countries. I'm already seeing it happen in my own company, where a number of experienced lower pay engineers and engineering support staff were let go coincidentally at the same time as an Indian engineering company was brought online to take over many of their tasks for a tenth of the pay (and probably, initially, with a hundredth of their quality).
+2
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
My fear is that the move to Work From Home will soon become the move to send these jobs to cheaper countries. I'm already seeing it happen in my own company, where a number of experienced lower pay engineers and engineering support staff were let go coincidentally at the same time as an Indian engineering company was brought online to take over many of their tasks for a tenth of the pay (and probably, initially, with a hundredth of their quality).
Prior to the plague getting everyone to WFH our NYC office had a pretty flexible policy, but our manager was insistent that you had to be in the office at least two or three times a week (depending on circumstances) because he didn't want the upper management to start thinking that if people were able to do their jobs without being in the NYC office, then maybe they could do their jobs without even being in the tri-state region or getting tri-state salaries.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
My fear is that the move to Work From Home will soon become the move to send these jobs to cheaper countries. I'm already seeing it happen in my own company, where a number of experienced lower pay engineers and engineering support staff were let go coincidentally at the same time as an Indian engineering company was brought online to take over many of their tasks for a tenth of the pay (and probably, initially, with a hundredth of their quality).
This is always a possibility in tech, and has very little to do with telecommuting.
The "silver lining" I guess is that all the good Indian tech companies are already completely filled up, and can't take more work, and what's left is often of questionable quality.\
I know it's anecdotal, but here in Europe, companies are moving away from offshoring because the quality of code returned was abysmal.
The new hot thing is near-shoring.
Basically, India won't take your job and be paid 20% of what you get. Instead, a nice Polish gentlemen will take your job, and be paid about 80%.
(The bad quality, btw, was more then just bad code, it was also cultural mismatch, difficulty communicating, difficulty in project management, etc...)
My fear is that the move to Work From Home will soon become the move to send these jobs to cheaper countries. I'm already seeing it happen in my own company, where a number of experienced lower pay engineers and engineering support staff were let go coincidentally at the same time as an Indian engineering company was brought online to take over many of their tasks for a tenth of the pay (and probably, initially, with a hundredth of their quality).
This is always a possibility in tech, and has very little to do with telecommuting.
The "silver lining" I guess is that all the good Indian tech companies are already completely filled up, and can't take more work, and what's left is often of questionable quality.\
I know it's anecdotal, but here in Europe, companies are moving away from offshoring because the quality of code returned was abysmal.
The new hot thing is near-shoring.
Basically, India won't take your job and be paid 20% of what you get. Instead, a nice Polish gentlemen will take your job, and be paid about 80%.
(The bad quality, btw, was more then just bad code, it was also cultural mismatch, difficulty communicating, difficulty in project management, etc...)
My experience and that of anyone I ever worked with was that you got what you paid for when it came to off-shoring to indian tech companies.
My fear is that the move to Work From Home will soon become the move to send these jobs to cheaper countries. I'm already seeing it happen in my own company, where a number of experienced lower pay engineers and engineering support staff were let go coincidentally at the same time as an Indian engineering company was brought online to take over many of their tasks for a tenth of the pay (and probably, initially, with a hundredth of their quality).
This is always a possibility in tech, and has very little to do with telecommuting.
The "silver lining" I guess is that all the good Indian tech companies are already completely filled up, and can't take more work, and what's left is often of questionable quality.\
I know it's anecdotal, but here in Europe, companies are moving away from offshoring because the quality of code returned was abysmal.
The new hot thing is near-shoring.
Basically, India won't take your job and be paid 20% of what you get. Instead, a nice Polish gentlemen will take your job, and be paid about 80%.
(The bad quality, btw, was more then just bad code, it was also cultural mismatch, difficulty communicating, difficulty in project management, etc...)
Yeah it's not like this hasn't been a thing before and then suddenly for some reason jobs started getting hired back in expensive markets again
Yeah unless you force unions to be government controlled so you can artificially keep wages low and shift actual production to the new place like all the auto industries did to Mexico so they could exploit workers even more.
My fear is that the move to Work From Home will soon become the move to send these jobs to cheaper countries. I'm already seeing it happen in my own company, where a number of experienced lower pay engineers and engineering support staff were let go coincidentally at the same time as an Indian engineering company was brought online to take over many of their tasks for a tenth of the pay (and probably, initially, with a hundredth of their quality).
Prior to the plague getting everyone to WFH our NYC office had a pretty flexible policy, but our manager was insistent that you had to be in the office at least two or three times a week (depending on circumstances) because he didn't want the upper management to start thinking that if people were able to do their jobs without being in the NYC office, then maybe they could do their jobs without even being in the tri-state region or getting tri-state salaries.
As someone who works remote 100% of the time and has for 3+ years. I can say for certain that 100% WFH has drawbacks and that having even 1 day on site would be preferred. Even if you are just coding, having 1 or 2 days to talk with co-workers, project managers, clients, etc is really valuable. I wouldn't be surprised if we get more WFH studies coming from this quarantine and I'll be interested to see what the conclusions are.
On a smaller scale, I'd be interested to see if companies that previously didn't push WFH, start doing so once they realize the savings on Bandwidth, HVAC, Electricity, etc.
Amazon's Jeff Bezos and Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg had the biggest gains, with Bezos adding $34.6 billion to his wealth and Zuckerberg adding $25 billion, according to the report from Americans for Tax Fairness and the Institute for Policy Studies' Program for Inequality. The report is based on Forbes data for America's more than 600 billionaires between March 18, when most states were in lockdown, and May 19.
CNBC is a news organization and America is a country with a functioning economy
Amazon's Jeff Bezos and Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg had the biggest gains, with Bezos adding $34.6 billion to his wealth and Zuckerberg adding $25 billion, according to the report from Americans for Tax Fairness and the Institute for Policy Studies' Program for Inequality. The report is based on Forbes data for America's more than 600 billionaires between March 18, when most states were in lockdown, and May 19.
CNBC is a news organization and America is a country with a functioning economy
CNBC is a news organization and America is a country with a dysfunctional economy.
There, fixed that for you.
I mean, the rich getting richer is always a bulwark against what a government (of, by and for the people) SHOULD be tested. In this case, it's clearly failed.
I don't remember who on the forums said it, or if it had origins elsewhere, but it's stuck with me. Something along the lines of "the existence of billionaires is a failure of government".
My fear is that the move to Work From Home will soon become the move to send these jobs to cheaper countries. I'm already seeing it happen in my own company, where a number of experienced lower pay engineers and engineering support staff were let go coincidentally at the same time as an Indian engineering company was brought online to take over many of their tasks for a tenth of the pay (and probably, initially, with a hundredth of their quality).
Prior to the plague getting everyone to WFH our NYC office had a pretty flexible policy, but our manager was insistent that you had to be in the office at least two or three times a week (depending on circumstances) because he didn't want the upper management to start thinking that if people were able to do their jobs without being in the NYC office, then maybe they could do their jobs without even being in the tri-state region or getting tri-state salaries.
As someone who works remote 100% of the time and has for 3+ years. I can say for certain that 100% WFH has drawbacks and that having even 1 day on site would be preferred. Even if you are just coding, having 1 or 2 days to talk with co-workers, project managers, clients, etc is really valuable. I wouldn't be surprised if we get more WFH studies coming from this quarantine and I'll be interested to see what the conclusions are.
On a smaller scale, I'd be interested to see if companies that previously didn't push WFH, start doing so once they realize the savings on Bandwidth, HVAC, Electricity, etc.
The largest savings will come on personnel within 12-24 months time.
Amazon's Jeff Bezos and Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg had the biggest gains, with Bezos adding $34.6 billion to his wealth and Zuckerberg adding $25 billion, according to the report from Americans for Tax Fairness and the Institute for Policy Studies' Program for Inequality. The report is based on Forbes data for America's more than 600 billionaires between March 18, when most states were in lockdown, and May 19.
CNBC is a news organization and America is a country with a functioning economy
CNBC is a news organization and America is a country with a dysfunctional economy.
There, fixed that for you.
I mean, the rich getting richer is always a bulwark against what a government (of, by and for the people) SHOULD be tested. In this case, it's clearly failed.
I don't remember who on the forums said it, or if it had origins elsewhere, but it's stuck with me. Something along the lines of "the existence of billionaires is a failure of government".
I said that in the Philanthropy thread. It's cool to know my arguments resonated with someone.
0
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
Net wealth is a stupid as fuck metric and I wish we wouldn't bother discussing it in here.
Well mine certainly hasnt gone up since February
Mine has, but that's due to not having enough retirement savings for the market dive to be that appreciable, a larger emergency fund than I probably need sitting in cash, and additional mortgage payments to principle along with the county reassessment for the condo.
Net wealth is a stupid as fuck metric and I wish we wouldn't bother discussing it in here.
Well mine certainly hasnt gone up since February
Mine has, but that's due to not having enough retirement savings for the market dive to be that appreciable, a larger emergency fund than I probably need sitting in cash, and additional mortgage payments to principle along with the county reassessment for the condo.
Yeah not having to pay daycare, and lack of traveling to work and back has ballooned my bank account and let me pay off more debts than normal.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I see the math different even if the numbers aren't 100%
I see someone being able to lose more than my entire town makes in a year, but being fine because they still have 10x that remaining
And that of course assumes they actually lost money.
Unless those stocks are sold for a loss (which is stupid unless you need liquidity), or those stocks never gain substantially again (short of this being the start of the apocolypse that's almost a certainty), they haven't "lost" money. The valuation of their current worth has changed downwards, but the assets they control haven't changed.
If the stock market rebounds as nearly everyone not completely nihilistic expects, even if it's several years out, the valuation of their current worth moves up.
I see the math different even if the numbers aren't 100%
I see someone being able to lose more than my entire town makes in a year, but being fine because they still have 10x that remaining
And that of course assumes they actually lost money.
Unless those stocks are sold for a loss (which is stupid unless you need liquidity), or those stocks never gain substantially again (short of this being the start of the apocolypse that's almost a certainty), they haven't "lost" money. The valuation of their current worth has changed downwards, but the assets they control haven't changed.
If the stock market rebounds as nearly everyone not completely nihilistic expects, even if it's several years out, the valuation of their current worth moves up.
Yep. Because how rich Jeff Bezos is remains a function of how valuable people think Amazon's services (plus real estate, intellectual property, &c.) are. He isn't that rich, Amazon is, and he owns that much of Amazon's stock. If everyone boycotted the company in perpetuity he'd go broke. But most people won't, especially not when confined to their homes, so...
I mean, there are a lot of structural problems inherent in all of that and how we have our society arranged. But that doesn't really get as easily summarized as net worth line go up.
I see the math different even if the numbers aren't 100%
I see someone being able to lose more than my entire town makes in a year, but being fine because they still have 10x that remaining
And that of course assumes they actually lost money.
Unless those stocks are sold for a loss (which is stupid unless you need liquidity), or those stocks never gain substantially again (short of this being the start of the apocolypse that's almost a certainty), they haven't "lost" money. The valuation of their current worth has changed downwards, but the assets they control haven't changed.
If the stock market rebounds as nearly everyone not completely nihilistic expects, even if it's several years out, the valuation of their current worth moves up.
Yep. Because how rich Jeff Bezos is remains a function of how valuable people think Amazon's services (plus real estate, intellectual property, &c.) are. He isn't that rich, Amazon is, and he owns that much of Amazon's stock. If everyone boycotted the company in perpetuity he'd go broke. But most people won't, especially not when confined to their homes, so...
I mean, there are a lot of structural problems inherent in all of that and how we have our society arranged. But that doesn't really get as easily summarized as net worth line go up.
Yup. That's what I figured when I saw the headline. Not the S&P Index chart that was used (poorly) to calculate net worth valuations, but that Bezos and Zuckerberg were directly seeing the valuations of the companies they ran increase. Amazon because f'n duh, people want stuff, and it's one of the easiest ways to get stuff, and Facebook, because people are able to spend much more time dicking around on it while they're not working, meaning ad revenue is up.
I'd have said the same for Netflix if it a) wasn't primarily owned by institutional investors rather than individuals, and b) didn't have ubiquity in the marketplace already with a subscription rather than PPV model.
This picture from that article is basically the problem with all the analyses on this kind of stuff designed to get people outraged:
Counter-counterpoint: How many thousands of lives have been needlessly sacrificed to keep that line from dipping back down again? How many will be?
How many could be saved if it didn't matter so much?
I'm not sure what that has to do with what I was pointing, which is that all these "OMG, the stock market is going up, economy broken" outrage-takes tend to only get to that conclusion by judiciously cherry-picking a start point to make the narrative they want work and in fact stockmarkets are still down a bunch.
+2
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
I see the math different even if the numbers aren't 100%
I see someone being able to lose more than my entire town makes in a year, but being fine because they still have 10x that remaining
And that of course assumes they actually lost money.
Unless those stocks are sold for a loss (which is stupid unless you need liquidity), or those stocks never gain substantially again (short of this being the start of the apocolypse that's almost a certainty), they haven't "lost" money. The valuation of their current worth has changed downwards, but the assets they control haven't changed.
If the stock market rebounds as nearly everyone not completely nihilistic expects, even if it's several years out, the valuation of their current worth moves up.
Yep. Because how rich Jeff Bezos is remains a function of how valuable people think Amazon's services (plus real estate, intellectual property, &c.) are. He isn't that rich, Amazon is, and he owns that much of Amazon's stock. If everyone boycotted the company in perpetuity he'd go broke. But most people won't, especially not when confined to their homes, so...
I mean, there are a lot of structural problems inherent in all of that and how we have our society arranged. But that doesn't really get as easily summarized as net worth line go up.
I see the math different even if the numbers aren't 100%
I see someone being able to lose more than my entire town makes in a year, but being fine because they still have 10x that remaining
And that of course assumes they actually lost money.
Unless those stocks are sold for a loss (which is stupid unless you need liquidity), or those stocks never gain substantially again (short of this being the start of the apocolypse that's almost a certainty), they haven't "lost" money. The valuation of their current worth has changed downwards, but the assets they control haven't changed.
If the stock market rebounds as nearly everyone not completely nihilistic expects, even if it's several years out, the valuation of their current worth moves up.
Yep. Because how rich Jeff Bezos is remains a function of how valuable people think Amazon's services (plus real estate, intellectual property, &c.) are. He isn't that rich, Amazon is, and he owns that much of Amazon's stock. If everyone boycotted the company in perpetuity he'd go broke. But most people won't, especially not when confined to their homes, so...
I mean, there are a lot of structural problems inherent in all of that and how we have our society arranged. But that doesn't really get as easily summarized as net worth line go up.
Um...that makes him still pretty fucking rich
So long as a fuckton of people use Amazon, driving it's valuation to be extremely high.
I see the math different even if the numbers aren't 100%
I see someone being able to lose more than my entire town makes in a year, but being fine because they still have 10x that remaining
And that of course assumes they actually lost money.
Unless those stocks are sold for a loss (which is stupid unless you need liquidity), or those stocks never gain substantially again (short of this being the start of the apocolypse that's almost a certainty), they haven't "lost" money. The valuation of their current worth has changed downwards, but the assets they control haven't changed.
If the stock market rebounds as nearly everyone not completely nihilistic expects, even if it's several years out, the valuation of their current worth moves up.
Yep. Because how rich Jeff Bezos is remains a function of how valuable people think Amazon's services (plus real estate, intellectual property, &c.) are. He isn't that rich, Amazon is, and he owns that much of Amazon's stock. If everyone boycotted the company in perpetuity he'd go broke. But most people won't, especially not when confined to their homes, so...
I mean, there are a lot of structural problems inherent in all of that and how we have our society arranged. But that doesn't really get as easily summarized as net worth line go up.
Um...that makes him still pretty fucking rich
So yeah, it makes him wealthy in assets, but I contend that asset wealth doesn't matter unless you can actually tax it. Which, with stock values, you can't unless you've received a dividend or sell the stock. That's how tax economists tend to view importance of illiquid asset wealth in property vs. equities and securities.
It's also why I contend net worth is a useless measure: you can't tax net worth. You can tax components of net worth (property, capital gains, income, etc.) but not the summation.
Posts
Trump signs executive order on eliminating "unnecessary regulations that impede economic recovery"
That's just asking for full employment for administrative lawyers.
Not with that attitude!
I’d anticipate more of an Eloi/Morlock situation.
Is it really a rule if there’s nobody to enforce it?
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Yes, because companies that have adhered to the rule (which may require investing in new capital) can sue.
And regulatory capture being cheaper then actual competition runs both ways. It's (probably) easier and cheaper to make the government stick with the regulation then to change your business to accommodate the deregulation.
The legal profession has been in almost violent upheaval since a) the recession basically killed recruiting for awhile and b) AI has started to significantly take up tasks mostly given to interns and new highers (e.g. doc review). So yeah, a lot of firms that aren't just a shingle or servicing a specific locality or whatever have basically been extremely picky for the last decade or so.
Prior to the plague getting everyone to WFH our NYC office had a pretty flexible policy, but our manager was insistent that you had to be in the office at least two or three times a week (depending on circumstances) because he didn't want the upper management to start thinking that if people were able to do their jobs without being in the NYC office, then maybe they could do their jobs without even being in the tri-state region or getting tri-state salaries.
This is always a possibility in tech, and has very little to do with telecommuting.
The "silver lining" I guess is that all the good Indian tech companies are already completely filled up, and can't take more work, and what's left is often of questionable quality.\
I know it's anecdotal, but here in Europe, companies are moving away from offshoring because the quality of code returned was abysmal.
The new hot thing is near-shoring.
Basically, India won't take your job and be paid 20% of what you get. Instead, a nice Polish gentlemen will take your job, and be paid about 80%.
(The bad quality, btw, was more then just bad code, it was also cultural mismatch, difficulty communicating, difficulty in project management, etc...)
My experience and that of anyone I ever worked with was that you got what you paid for when it came to off-shoring to indian tech companies.
Yeah it's not like this hasn't been a thing before and then suddenly for some reason jobs started getting hired back in expensive markets again
As someone who works remote 100% of the time and has for 3+ years. I can say for certain that 100% WFH has drawbacks and that having even 1 day on site would be preferred. Even if you are just coding, having 1 or 2 days to talk with co-workers, project managers, clients, etc is really valuable. I wouldn't be surprised if we get more WFH studies coming from this quarantine and I'll be interested to see what the conclusions are.
On a smaller scale, I'd be interested to see if companies that previously didn't push WFH, start doing so once they realize the savings on Bandwidth, HVAC, Electricity, etc.
CNBC is a news organization and America is a country with a dysfunctional economy.
There, fixed that for you.
I mean, the rich getting richer is always a bulwark against what a government (of, by and for the people) SHOULD be tested. In this case, it's clearly failed.
I don't remember who on the forums said it, or if it had origins elsewhere, but it's stuck with me. Something along the lines of "the existence of billionaires is a failure of government".
The largest savings will come on personnel within 12-24 months time.
I don’t want to click it, does it say what their net wealth change is since February
I said that in the Philanthropy thread. It's cool to know my arguments resonated with someone.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/no-americas-billionaires-didnt-get-434-billion-richer-during-the-pandemic-quite-the-opposite-in-fact-2020-05-22
Well mine certainly hasnt gone up since February
Mine has, but that's due to not having enough retirement savings for the market dive to be that appreciable, a larger emergency fund than I probably need sitting in cash, and additional mortgage payments to principle along with the county reassessment for the condo.
Yeah not having to pay daycare, and lack of traveling to work and back has ballooned my bank account and let me pay off more debts than normal.
pleasepaypreacher.net
This picture from that article is basically the problem with all the analyses on this kind of stuff designed to get people outraged:
I see someone being able to lose more than my entire town makes in a year, but being fine because they still have 10x that remaining
Imagine it's a combination of super low oil prices + pandemic that pushed it that high.
Counter-counterpoint: How many thousands of lives have been needlessly sacrificed to keep that line from dipping back down again? How many will be?
How many could be saved if it didn't matter so much?
And that of course assumes they actually lost money.
Unless those stocks are sold for a loss (which is stupid unless you need liquidity), or those stocks never gain substantially again (short of this being the start of the apocolypse that's almost a certainty), they haven't "lost" money. The valuation of their current worth has changed downwards, but the assets they control haven't changed.
If the stock market rebounds as nearly everyone not completely nihilistic expects, even if it's several years out, the valuation of their current worth moves up.
Yep. Because how rich Jeff Bezos is remains a function of how valuable people think Amazon's services (plus real estate, intellectual property, &c.) are. He isn't that rich, Amazon is, and he owns that much of Amazon's stock. If everyone boycotted the company in perpetuity he'd go broke. But most people won't, especially not when confined to their homes, so...
I mean, there are a lot of structural problems inherent in all of that and how we have our society arranged. But that doesn't really get as easily summarized as net worth line go up.
Yup. That's what I figured when I saw the headline. Not the S&P Index chart that was used (poorly) to calculate net worth valuations, but that Bezos and Zuckerberg were directly seeing the valuations of the companies they ran increase. Amazon because f'n duh, people want stuff, and it's one of the easiest ways to get stuff, and Facebook, because people are able to spend much more time dicking around on it while they're not working, meaning ad revenue is up.
I'd have said the same for Netflix if it a) wasn't primarily owned by institutional investors rather than individuals, and b) didn't have ubiquity in the marketplace already with a subscription rather than PPV model.
I'm not sure what that has to do with what I was pointing, which is that all these "OMG, the stock market is going up, economy broken" outrage-takes tend to only get to that conclusion by judiciously cherry-picking a start point to make the narrative they want work and in fact stockmarkets are still down a bunch.
Um...that makes him still pretty fucking rich
So long as a fuckton of people use Amazon, driving it's valuation to be extremely high.
So yeah, it makes him wealthy in assets, but I contend that asset wealth doesn't matter unless you can actually tax it. Which, with stock values, you can't unless you've received a dividend or sell the stock. That's how tax economists tend to view importance of illiquid asset wealth in property vs. equities and securities.