Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Economic Termites: Monopolies not noticeable enough for most of us

thebignewsletter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 457 posts

Re: Economic Termites: Monopolies not noticeable enough for most of us

#361

Post by johnnyanmac »

EasyMark wrote: post #356
johnnyanmac wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For my area in Los Angeles, it wasn't viable because everyone (or someone you know) has a car. a friend ride is much cheaper than an Uber. I only download the Uber app when I need to get to the airport and am leaving for weeks at a time. Any other time, I take myself, ask a friend, or even consider what remnants we have of public transportation (e.g. instead of taking a horribly expensive uber in/out of LAX, take a s…

A lot of us won’t ask friends for rides because it’s kind of selfish, I’ll do an uber/lyft every time unless my buddy is right there saying he’s heading that way.

Well I have my car and we tend to alternate carpools, so there's not usually any pressure. I tend to give them $10-20 to cover gas and I still come out way ahead.

I just never get a good time to go to/leave an airport, so that's the only time I resort to Uber.

Re: Economic Termites: Monopolies not noticeable enough for most of us

#362

Post by nitwit005 »

WalterBright wrote: post #348
nitwit005 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sort of industry gets regulated because letting people build multiple incompatible networks is an extremely expensive thing to do. The railways often built incompatible tracks, signaling systems, and so forth, which was a problem nation's still struggle with. Power companies created incompatible systems. Japan is famous for running on two incompatible electrical grids to this day.

There are enormous economic forces that push for standardization. For example, your keyboard is likely connected via USB. USB isn't a government standard. Neither is Standard C. And endless other things that the market standardized. Even 2*4 lumber is standardized. Gasoline is standardized. And so on. > Power companies created incompatible systems. They're usually granted government monopolies.

And yet somehow those incompatible telephone systems, rail systems, power systems, and everything else all came into existence.

USB is widely highlighted as an unusual success. But Apple has notably created their own incompatible connectors, and made money that way, which is why Europe is busy forcing a charging standard.

Gasoline is very obviously government regulated. 2 by 4s are only sort of standardized.

Re: Economic Termites: Monopolies not noticeable enough for most of us

#363

Post by trashface »

chii wrote: post #163
carlosjobim wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Our method for understanding the economy is flawed There is no misunderstanding. In the Soviet Union, the rulers and their media would every day report on how fantastical the economy was doing and how production was beating records etc. Get used, because this will continue for the rest of your life.

But there was shortages of everything in the USSR. What shortages are there in the US?

You have perhaps read that some people in a few places are having troubles with housing or rent?

Re: Economic Termites: Monopolies not noticeable enough for most of us

#364

Post by mptest »

scrubadub wrote: post #353
mptest wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>both sides bad Yeah, but one is way worse. >law about criminals You said "everything". "Everything" is what I'm challenging. No serious effort is made to force women to make any concessions, except by the party that is restricting their medical autonomy. And I guess prisoners? You've certainly got me there, but I don't think I've ever stated a good word about the correctional system. What you link is a specific law…

> What you link is a specific law covering a pretty specific category of people, ones already in jail. Not exactly "demanding everything women have be man's"... Why do you think that law was passed in the first place? It's because the current progressive position is that any male who says he's a woman should be allowed to access any service or space that was created solely for women. This isn't just limited to prison…

>Why do you think that law

Because misogynist and patriarchal (agree with you there) dumbass dems over correct when they finally pick an issue to do something about? See also: latinx.

It's dumb and bad, but the other side is still way worse.

>If you remove the female body from the definition of woman, what else remains besides sexist stereotypes?

Oh idk, maybe who they are as an individual? What they stand for? What they like and dislike?? such a debate brained take

Your question put another way:

"If the female body isn't what defines a person as a woman, what is left but sexist stereotypes?"

That's you brother, not us. That's what YOU think remains when you take biological categorization out of the picture.

Which is why people caught by the "omg trans people exist and want to be protected too" panic like yourself end up at this weird need for rigid binary gender when intersex and trans people been existing for a long time before you lot were taught to hate/fear them by fox news

Re: Economic Termites: Monopolies not noticeable enough for most of us

#365

Post by sologoub »

sanex wrote: post #344
sologoub wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Four. Interestingly, the US cell phone industry would seem competitive - major players (Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile) and a bunch of smaller and/or regional players including the incumbent telcos like xfinity and spectrum. Then you dig a little deeper and see that all that “competition” runs on the towers of one of the three and unlike with the reform of British Telecom (BT), there are no requirements for this infra…

5 years ago or so I had T-Mobile for $50/month unlimited everything. I switched off and just went back for $170 for a phone for my wife and I. To pretend to be comparable on a per line basis they gave me a phone number that I literally could not refuse. Before they bought Sprint we had the magic 4 but now it's 3 and a bunch of resellers.

4 is still an oligopoly[1]. It’s a little better than 3, but we didn’t have super cheap cell plans. Compared with most of the rest of the world, it was still quite expensive.

[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly

Re: Economic Termites: Monopolies not noticeable enough for most of us

#366

Post by jurassic »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #310
jurassic wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A small percent of tech workers struggling to get a job doesn’t change the overall picture that most people working in tech are living relatively prosperous and comfortable lives. We are paid at a level that means we don’t feel stressed at the grocery store figuring out how to feed our kids or wonder how will we get to work when our cars break down. And as a bonus, we get to sit comfortably in air-conditioned rooms a…

>I and many people I know have gone through job searches over the last 18 months. Yes, it was more work than we’ve come to expect over the last 10 years. But ultimately everyone I know has landed on their feet. As an industry we are still incredibly privileged compared to most. it's 50/50 in my circle. And I got the losing coin toss. Pretty much everyone in my circle got at least a threat of a lay off at some point e…

Sorry you are having a rough search. I was part of a large layoff so I know plenty of people who’ve been through it recently, some more than once if they went into another company that then had layoffs. I’d say the average search in my circle for those actively looking was about 3-4 months, with people who were very junior taking perhaps double that. I got some rejections that shocked and upset me at the time, but now that time has passed I’m glad I’m not in those roles because I found something later I liked much better.

For myself, referrals were a huge part of getting a job somewhat quickly. As more people are looking, the slush pile of resumes gets bigger which causes employers to feel they can be more picky. So if you’re relying on a cold application turning into an interview, that will definitely have a very low success rate.

I know only one person who didn’t get a job for an entire year, one of the smartest people I worked with at my last job, but to be honest it seemed like they were having some mental health / mid-life crisis things going on and not actually applying much if at all. I don’t know you and your situation, and I’m not saying this is the only explanation for a long and fruitless search, but if you think you might be like this person then I’d encourage you to reach out to someone who knows you and get the support you need. Marinating in negative thoughts won’t get you anywhere. This stuff has to be addressed because attitude, emotional state, and overall vibes can bleed into the entire interview performance and undermine what is otherwise a solid showing.

I hope something good comes your way soon.

Re: Economic Termites: Monopolies not noticeable enough for most of us

#367

Post by [deleted] »

lotsoweiners wrote: post #290
emseetech wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

| an education The community college in the area I briefly lived growing up was $17 a credit hour in 1997. Inflation adjusted that's $31.67 a credit hour. It's now nearly $140 a credit hour. Almost 4.5x more than inflation. For a community college.

Probably considerably cheaper than the University and you can always transfer after 2 years.

[deleted]

Re: Economic Termites: Monopolies not noticeable enough for most of us

#368

Post by scrubadub »

mptest wrote: post #364
scrubadub wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What you link is a specific law covering a pretty specific category of people, ones already in jail. Not exactly "demanding everything women have be man's"... Why do you think that law was passed in the first place? It's because the current progressive position is that any male who says he's a woman should be allowed to access any service or space that was created solely for women. This isn't just limited to prison…

>Why do you think that law Because misogynist and patriarchal (agree with you there) dumbass dems over correct when they finally pick an issue to do something about? See also: latinx. It's dumb and bad, but the other side is still way worse. >If you remove the female body from the definition of woman, what else remains besides sexist stereotypes? Oh idk, maybe who they are as an individual? What they stand for? What…

> Because misogynist and patriarchal (agree with you there) dumbass dems over correct when they finally pick an issue to do something about?

Yes, so you agree with me then. As I said in my first comment, this is policy overreach by progressives. They've ended up pushing policy that enables any male who says he's a woman to access any space that was intended to be only for women. This harms women and girls.

> > If you remove the female body from the definition of woman, what else remains besides sexist stereotypes?

> Oh idk, maybe who they are as an individual? What they stand for? What they like and dislike??

I think you misunderstood the question.

At least, I hope it's not your view that likes and dislikes are what distinguish women as a class from men as a class, and vice versa, because that wouldn't make any sense at all.

Re: Economic Termites: Monopolies not noticeable enough for most of us

#370

Post by randomdata »

wholinator2 wrote: post #109
AbstractH24 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you exclude the possibility that talking heads in news and politics are pedaling the idea that consumers feel it’s terrible? Most everyone I know seems to be living it pretty good with much less concern for the future. Certainly compared to 2023 and even compared to 2019.

That's very good for you, you should count yourself lucky. But i think we should trust people when they tell us how they feel. Do you live paycheck to paycheck? Are you aware that a majority oh Americans (55-69%) do, defined as struggling to save or invest anything past the monthly expenses? I'm a late 20s man who made it into tech, I'm doing great! My friend who got into tech might kind of hate their corporate job l…

> Are you aware that a majority oh Americans (55-69%) do, defined as struggling to save or invest anything past the monthly expenses?

How can that be? Only ~30-35% of Americans rent a home, which means that ~65-70% of Americans either own a home or are freeloading (e.g. living with parents). Only ~3% of homes are considered to be underwater, which means virtually all those who own a home have been able to save over and above their monthly expenses.

So, especially on the high end, if 69% of Americans are unable to save, while virtually all homeowners have been able to save, and even if we assume all renters cannot afford to save, that suggests 34% of Americans are freeloaders. It seems highly unlikely that all renters are unable to save (what about the tech people who rent?), but whatever.

How do we resolve that? The freeloader figure is in the ballpark of what the data suggests if you are counting all the way down to babies. Is that what you've done here? But nobody would ever think that a baby should have an income that allows them to save, so you're kind of being disingenuous if that is the case. I find it hard to believe you would state this figure including children.

Or is it that you mean 55-69% of Americans do not have money in a savings account – as in a specific type of bank account? I have seen reports like that before so maybe that's where you got the idea? If that's what you mean, it is quite believable that the majority do not keep money parked in a savings account. The interest rates in such accounts are rarely compelling, so why would they?

Post reply on HN