Live data from Hacker News

It’s Time to Build

a16z.com

121–130 of 1001 posts

Re: It’s Time to Build

#121

Ok, assume I'm bought into this idea - where would I even begin? What are some companies working on these kind of fundamental building things problems? I know of the Boring Company, though haven't really heard anything from them since the flamethrowers a few years back. Sidewalk labs was doing some cool things in Toronto, but I think they've been running into big regulatory issues too and it one point it sounded like…

In many cases, I am not sure his solutions address the real problem.

Housing is rising in price as more people pile into fewer cities. There is no housing crisis in Spartanburg, Louisville, Lethbridge or even Houston. You can build all the homes you want, but unless they are in Manhattan or San Franciso, a billion new homes won't make the condos there cheaper.

You can also build all the colleges you want, but the returns on that are starting to narrow. Hundreds of thousands of grads end up unemployed or underemployed. We could make college free, but that wouldn't create more jobs that require such a degree. Are a million extra college grads at a mass-production school really going to change anything? Employers don't accept Coursera courses as a substitute for a degree and I suspect such a school would be viewed like Coursera. It doesn't help that in America and to a lesser extent Canada, people zoom in on the school ranking and reputation. A lot of the value of the university to an individual has nothing to do with what is taught in classes there, but how competitive it was to get into.

I had a conversation with a dean of a university about offering online courses and the reason they said they would never do it seriously is because that would greatly devalue that people admitted to that school were top tier and thus were top tier on the way out.

Is what makes Harvard special that it is doing something uniquely right or that it has the unique ability to draw the best?

Re: It’s Time to Build

#123

> The problem is desire. We need to want these things. The problem is inertia. I agreed with most of the essay until I got to this point, at which point I rolled my eyes and briefly skimmed the rest. It's akin to people who say that the reason there are so many overweight people is that they lack willpower and motivation. Look at pictures from middle-America in the late 1940s - virtually everyone is thin, whereas tod…

Using an example where an outcome (weight gain) is completely driven by an individual’s (in)action (consuming more energy than expending) is probably not the best argument for opposing a “try harder” approach to living.

Yes it’s never been easier to eat like shit and have hobbies that require no movement, but the opposite is also true.

Re: It’s Time to Build

#124

> I expect this essay to be the target of criticism. Here’s a modest proposal to my critics. Instead of attacking my ideas of what to build, conceive your own! What do you think we should build? There’s an excellent chance I’ll agree with you. What we need to build is the capacity to make investments in building backstops against low-prob, high-risk, collective risks. For almost all of those risks, the problem isn't…

Honest, no snark question -- what exactly US government did in last 30 years that should warrant providing more money to it? Is there any guarantee that another trillion dollars will be used more efficiently than blowing up another Middle East country?

[deleted]

Re: It’s Time to Build

#125
> Why aren’t we building Elon Musk’s “alien dreadnoughts” — giant, gleaming, state of the art factories producing every conceivable kind of product, at the highest possible quality and lowest possible cost — all throughout our country?

Because we have few of the industrial titans which are required to spearhead that and round up (or possess) the necessary capital. This sort of outcome does not magically self-assemble, it starts with one person that takes action. You actually need hyper competent, hard charging, ambitious, skilled people of all sorts to go after the extreme challenges represented by such a huge re-industrialization. These people and their talents no longer exist in such high numbers among the population as they did prior to the gutting of the US industrial age. They are now rare and the capital that desires to fund them is equally rare.

If you want to produce them, you need to completely alter the incentive structures we arrange our economy around.

We should have 0% corporate tax rates for all domestic manufacturing concerns, to get started. Tax individual income at a higher rate.

Implement a robust system of income tax credits and abandon the minimum wage as it exists today. This is not my idea of course, Warren Buffett is probably its loudest supporter and he is absolutely right. Set the income tax credit system such that it guarantees a higher minimum wage of at least $12. By removing the strict front-facing minimum wage we have today (which blocks labor from the market), all businesses would immediately aggressively seek to hire anyone and everyone they can get their hands on. The workers would be guaranteed a minimum wage by the redistribution income tax credit system and there would be no labor-value blocker (aka the minimum wage) keeping businesses from hiring people.

If a state has a $12 minimum wage, and your labor is only worth $9, you're screwed. This solves that.

It's about absorbing max lower skill labor (where the unemployment problems tend to be over time) into the workforce. You make labor artificially cheaper, while simultaneously paying that labor a fair wage: we subsidize the outcome we want. They produce, they earn a good wage, they build savings and can start to become asset owners. They also start learning new skills (and later might start production of their own based on the accumulating of experience at making goods; an important catalyst in re-industrialization). The combination would unleash epic common-goods manufacturing output the likes of which the US hasn't seen in half a century.

It would make it economical to manufacture low-margin, lower value goods in the US again. It becomes a de facto subsidization for employment and manufacturing.

This would instantly change the US economy for the better.

Re: It’s Time to Build

#126
post #123

> The problem is desire. We need to want these things. The problem is inertia. I agreed with most of the essay until I got to this point, at which point I rolled my eyes and briefly skimmed the rest. It's akin to people who say that the reason there are so many overweight people is that they lack willpower and motivation. Look at pictures from middle-America in the late 1940s - virtually everyone is thin, whereas tod…

Using an example where an outcome (weight gain) is completely driven by an individual’s (in)action (consuming more energy than expending) is probably not the best argument for opposing a “try harder” approach to living. Yes it’s never been easier to eat like shit and have hobbies that require no movement, but the opposite is also true.

My point is that arguing that "try harder" is a solution to the American obesity problem is provably ridiculous, because we've been saying that for decades and it obviously hasn't worked.

Re: It’s Time to Build

#127
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly not all of them, but the German healthcare system has dealt extremely well. There is plenty of testing capacity, and plenty of ICU beds. Thanks to century old unified health insurance laws. Edit: Otto von Bismarck actually instituted the health insurance system of Germany, certainly not a socialist!

Germany having top pharma factories for things like testing and other medical stuff seems a good reason

The testing availability and capacity there is also due to the many hospitals at the county level, each with their own medical testing lab.

The RKI (German CDC equivalent) developed and distributed a PCR test in mid January, so they were primed.

Re: It’s Time to Build

#128
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my original post: Governments DID see this coming, both federal and state. California, at one time, was prepared for exactly this crisis. The 2008 financial crisis wiped out state budgets

BS. If they were prepared, where did everything go? CA had lower income so they burned all the PPE and shut down hospitals?

I don't know about California but the same kinda shit happened in France. In 2007 our health minister had a bad time because she orderer massive amount of tests, masks, and hydro-alcoolic solutions. It was during SRAS, and at the time for 'nothing'.

All those item were needed 3 weeks ago, but the stock were never fully replenish since. Most of those things are perishable.

WTF.

Re: It’s Time to Build

#129

> I expect this essay to be the target of criticism. Here’s a modest proposal to my critics. Instead of attacking my ideas of what to build, conceive your own! What do you think we should build? There’s an excellent chance I’ll agree with you. What we need to build is the capacity to make investments in building backstops against low-prob, high-risk, collective risks. For almost all of those risks, the problem isn't…

It is remarkable how uniformly lethargic the entire political spectrum of the West has been with respect to this crisis until it was too late, while we're seemingly also universally unwilling to build housing or infrastructure across the West, while many Asian countries seem to actually be doing a much better job of all of these things. Instead we sit around and bicker about everything and wait.

Re: It’s Time to Build

#130
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't the last 30 years sort of the problem though? How about we check the 30 years before that: medicare, social security, the tail end of the new deal, the rapid cleanup of acid emissions which were wrecking forests all up and down the east coast... Seems like, starting in the 80's, you would have looked at this and said hey, this government knows what it's doing, we should let it do more stuff . Instead we basica…

You might be right, I honestly don't know. But if this is the case, maybe first you need to reform the government (in what exact way? and how the reform should be done, politically?) and after first task is accomplished you can feed it with some trillions of dollars? Otherwise, "tax the living hell out of capital" will just cause some more big BOOM sounds somewhere in middle east, and deplete private capital from mak…

How about "tax the living hell out of capital" on a spending-neutral basis? Pay off the debt. Stimulate local economies. Increase the EITC ceiling. Hell, write a simple UBI statute.

There are lots of easy (and easily verifiable) ways to spend government money on things people value. That you think there aren't is sort of the triumph of modern conservatism in a nutshell.

Post reply on HN