161–170 of 448 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it doesn't, and the proof of that is that landlords don't already charge 100% of income. You seem to be assuming housing rental is an perfectly monopolistic market, which it isn't, and any place where it even loosely approximates that needs to correct that whether or not UBI is adopted.
Okay then you tell me: why do rents go up at all?
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-s...
Some authors of this piece are deeply involved themselves in building robots and other hardware technology. They should be taken seriously. The US is moving into a trade war, however unwise, with the country that supplies components for everything we make and need. That country has expansionist ambitions and a superior manufacturing base, which is typically what wins wars.
You could also ... try not to make war. Just an idea. Pretty offputting actually to see someone supporting expansion being upvoted.
Some authors of this piece are deeply involved themselves in building robots and other hardware technology. They should be taken seriously. The US is moving into a trade war, however unwise, with the country that supplies components for everything we make and need. That country has expansionist ambitions and a superior manufacturing base, which is typically what wins wars.
China has been methodically preparing for trade war and decoupling for the better part of the decade. US went in full throttle with zero preparation. This is not going to end well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, no one sane will invest in building factory systems on US soil under a Kakistocracy. Robot platforms are already a difficult business model in the private sector. With the exception of robot vacuums the market just isn't viable in the US yet. Best of luck =3
Consumer robotics, maybe - but commercial robotics has been a critical component of (for instance) Amazon’s fulfillment infrastructure.
Most general purpose robot firms just don't do well domestically, and rarely make it past a business cycle. I would partner with Festo Germany before touching US markets. =3
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Another is that humans will find other ways of exploring and spending time that doesn't necessitate productivity. Take just about any British musician from the past 50 years - the ones who weren't middle or upper class almost all say that being on welfare (the dole) was what gave them the time and freedom to be creatives. UB40, for example, are literally named for the application form.
I think that there are definitely people who have been on welfare and used it to better themselves and there are people who thrive in the face of adversity, overcoming the worst situations. I also think that there are a large number of people who ended up lost without direction or purpose. People are weird and different.
People on welfare? I can imagine a lot of these people "accept" that the goal is to get themselves out of welfare, ASAP (especially if there's a deadline), but they can't see a way to that goal - e.g. applying for jobs but getting rejected left and right, and feeling dejected.
With utopian UBI, one would be free to do what they want.. even if it's just jagging off the whole day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one is trying to make war, but naturally China is looking at changing the order of things, at least regionally. To make that happen it needs USA to move out, and create its own coalition of countries around the area.
USA needs to move out and stop trying to start a war with China. Taiwan is China. Historically, legally, even according to the US's own policy. The KMT lost. This fantasy the US has of toppling or splitting up the PRC in a proxy war is extremely deranged. China has exercised incredible restraint over the actions of a belligerent warmonger US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s the only way the US will learn.
Politics and propaganda tend to dominate national "learning", and those forces tend to escalate to prevent awareness. So not a lot of learning happens, historically ("history tends to repeat itself"; "history doesn't repeat, but it rhymes", etc)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This argument applies equally to never increasing anyone’s wages. If income goes up for anyone, rent will instantly rise to match the increase. (It’s not clear why this only applies to rent and not other things people spend money on.)
This is correct, it does apply to all forms of wage increases. I wouldn't say "instantly," but yes that's why cities are perpetually expensive despite constantly increasing productivity. They are highly productive ergo they have high wages ergo they can sustain high rents ergo they have high rents ergo they "are expensive" compared to adjacent markets. Mentioned above but I'll put it here too for other readers: the r…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why are manufacturing jobs special? Because you need manufacturing to win wars, or to be seen by outside great powers that you're in a position of winning wars. You're not winning wars based on git commit messages, but based on the steel any one country is able to produce at a certain moment in time (and to transform it into tanks/armoured vehicles and artillery shells).
That is manufacturing capacity, not jobs. A factory of ten people and a few hundred robots is fine. Other types of manufacturing like chips, aerospace and medical equipment are high value and low workforce. Tariffs and industrial policy may increase the US' manufacturing capacity, but don't expect to see many manufacturing jobs from it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Just decided" =/= decided today. They decided months if not years ago, after months of negotiations with local authorities. Don't look at plants opening now to judge the current administration. Look at it 2 years from now.
I don't know - the article specifically said Honda will produce the cars "to avoid potential tariffs". I don't think the Trump tariffs were in place "years ago"...
This does not mean the making of the deals and building the factory had anything to do with it at the time, but stating that those past decisions also have benefit in today's situation is not surprising.
It also does not mean that this has anything to do with the actual reason the deals and investments were made years ago. As you point out, those deals & investments years ago couldn't have anything to do with this week's tariffs.