101–110 of 260 posts
[flagged]
> They are all justifying continuation of that culture by "not having time and being overworked" and therefore require services to be available at all times.
This is /almost/ a systemic analysis. Consider the implications of having no time due to overwork and thus demanding 24/7 services, requiring overwork from others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any idea then number of people and the volume of resources that go to servicing the wealthy? Yes, I think we'd be doing better if there were fewer extraordinarily wealthy people. They aren't necessary to work together to achieve economies of scale, but they sure are fucking expensive.
Do you? Do you really think you can magically turn raw materials + work needed to build a super yacht into something of global consequence ? Or a Pollock painting will magically turn into a 1000 homes? Or that 1% consumes significantly more food? Most ultra-rich sh*t is immaterial to struggles of regular people. Even if 1%ers consumes extra 300 square meters of real eastate if you divide it across the 99% you will ge…
I hate this kind of framing. People use it all the time. "It only costs 50p per person of the population to maintain the UK Royal Family" ...
Pfft, in total there is the potential to do something more significant, more useful, and .... material.
Meanwhile in the US John Deere is cutting off health insurance to strong arm them into ending the strike. Allowing employers to control health care is not a good idea.
> Allowing employers to control health care is not a good idea. Not that I disagree, but I'd like to point out that you're effectively advocating for all other employers to "cut" healthcare as well. As someone who pays my own (and my family's) healthcare to the tune of $16K/yr for a really shitty plan, I'd also say that _who_ pays is probably not the primary concern here. If it cost one third what it does now (which…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there is demand for housing and you do not make supplying that demand illegal someone will supply it. People live in dormitories in Hong Kong right now. Perfectly safe but middle class busybodies don't like flophouses, SROs or dormitories so they make it illegal. If it was legal to provide housing in San Francisco in dorms it would be done. If it was legal to build residential skyscrapers in New York Queens would…
When you build roads, you get more traffic. I wonder if the following is true? When you build more apartments you get more density and more inward migration and more concentration of opportunity, until the marginal migrant can't afford or doesn't want to live there. The same sort of people are miserable when there's more density as when there was less, except there's more of them. [NOTE: I mostly agree with you and t…
Because roads are practically free to drivers. If you gave me a bigger house for free I would live in it alone even though it was designed for a family of 6.
If you charged a sufficient toll on congested roads the congestion would be gone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given most people are not super-wealthy, popular shows are much more likely to have been sympathetic to that view. No one wants to watch a show that says "Actually things are pretty good compared to how they were, and still improving, and while there are a few really rich people in the world, it wouldn't change your life for the better if they didn't exist."
Do you have any idea then number of people and the volume of resources that go to servicing the wealthy? Yes, I think we'd be doing better if there were fewer extraordinarily wealthy people. They aren't necessary to work together to achieve economies of scale, but they sure are fucking expensive.
Meanwhile in the US John Deere is cutting off health insurance to strong arm them into ending the strike. Allowing employers to control health care is not a good idea.
> Allowing employers to control health care is not a good idea. Not that I disagree, but I'd like to point out that you're effectively advocating for all other employers to "cut" healthcare as well. As someone who pays my own (and my family's) healthcare to the tune of $16K/yr for a really shitty plan, I'd also say that _who_ pays is probably not the primary concern here. If it cost one third what it does now (which…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any idea then number of people and the volume of resources that go to servicing the wealthy? Yes, I think we'd be doing better if there were fewer extraordinarily wealthy people. They aren't necessary to work together to achieve economies of scale, but they sure are fucking expensive.
Do you? Do you really think you can magically turn raw materials + work needed to build a super yacht into something of global consequence ? Or a Pollock painting will magically turn into a 1000 homes? Or that 1% consumes significantly more food? Most ultra-rich sh*t is immaterial to struggles of regular people. Even if 1%ers consumes extra 300 square meters of real eastate if you divide it across the 99% you will ge…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One day, hopefully we'll be rich enough to do this and not have it be a mess. Fullly automated luxury space communism is the goal.
Luxury and communism are opposites. Compatible words with communism are miserable, corrupt, genocidal or tyrannical. You can pick whatever you want.
You're thinking of Marxism-Leninism, which is just a dictatorship with extra steps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not building roads/apartments is not a solution, unless you really want to cosplay middle ages in your country. So you will have to build something , somewhere . Actually, roads and apartments are in counter-balance. More resedential high-rises in semi-walkable distance from business districts and public transit = less roads are needed (but there is still congestion due to bottlenecks). More spread-out houses - more…
Korea frequently tries to decentralize and build new districts and cities from scratch.It just does not work because of korean culture.
Meanwhile in the US John Deere is cutting off health insurance to strong arm them into ending the strike. Allowing employers to control health care is not a good idea.
> Allowing employers to control health care is not a good idea. Not that I disagree, but I'd like to point out that you're effectively advocating for all other employers to "cut" healthcare as well. As someone who pays my own (and my family's) healthcare to the tune of $16K/yr for a really shitty plan, I'd also say that _who_ pays is probably not the primary concern here. If it cost one third what it does now (which…
It is why every other developed country on the planet does.
It is what Hayek advocates for in “the road to serfdom”.
It is publicly funded universal healthcare.