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

Banned in California

bannedincalifornia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

641–650 of 749 posts

Re: Banned in California

#641

Post by inigyou »

dmix wrote: post #560
danans wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> China has reduced its pollution massively since the 90s while aggressively expanding its industrial output. And they have done it without excessive bureaucracy China's system is authoritarian state-capitalism. It is precisely the bureaucracy that steered it's industries toward this outcome.

It helps you can buy an electric car in China for 1/4th the price as California. They also massively invested in every sort of energy (not just solar) where it's cheap and affordable to develop industry. Everyone obsesses about labour costs but almost everything is easier and cheaper to build in China because they allow stuff to be built there. Including the workers far lower housing, utilities, fuel, and food prices…

That's because the bureaucracy there is making stuff get built instead of making stuff not get built, and it planned all the externalities too.

Re: Banned in California

#642

Post by Fischgericht »

almosthere wrote: post #477
Fischgericht wrote: post #243

There is a reason these kind of things are no longer possible in much of the western world and especially Europe-like US states like California: After the deindustrialization people started to enjoy healthy air and clear water. As always when it comes to "the good old times" or "make great again", your brain will remember very selectively. I used to live next to a large river for about 35 years. As a kid, it was forb…

It's not black and white - do things smarter. But make jobs - top priority. We need jobs otherwise wealth concentrates.

In the US, you could work 400 hours per day, and still nothing would change in regards of wealth concentration.

Inheriting money from your parents is taxed lower than earning your own money through work. Making more money due to already having money is taxed lower than earning your own money.

US Americans by a large majority over decades got trained to believe changing that would have something to do with "socialism", which was made a bad word.

But this isn't about re-distribution, making people equal or anything.

It's just that it is not logical, does not make sense, and in the end will destroy your society if already having money, which provides no benefit to society whatsoever, is rewarded over producing something, which does provide a benefit.

Why does a teacher who provides REAL benefit to society in the US has less yearly net income than someone who does not work at all but has once inherited 200k from his parents?

You have been trained to find all of this normal, and to believe it's your fault. Just work harder! No, it's not your fault. Working harder won't change anything.

So imagine you have one of the richest countries on this planet. But you don't really have enough work for every human to work full-time. Why is this a problem instead of an ideal? What strange goal is "everyone should work hard" when it comes to enjoying life? If you have an insanely rich country, there are far better solutions than trying to artificially create jobs that make no sense.

You can not compare this to a POOR country with high unemployment. There unemployment is a problem. In the US? Who cares if there is no factory to work in? Instead go help your neighbor. Study something. Become an artist. Do a public gardening project.

Again, the problem is that "having money already" that is of no use to society whatsoever is valued and awarded higher than any of those useful things above.

So, Step 1 for the US would be: You don't have to take away anything from anyone. But stop rewarding people for already having money.

As the CEO and owner of a German limited company I can choose between paying me a salary, getting taxed 45% ) for that, or paying myself a dividend, getting taxed 25% ). The first time I learned that 20 years ago I found it totally crazy and could not believe it. I still find it crazy today. Even in my own f'ing company my OWN work is valued less by society than me owning my company!

*) Oversimplification, but the ratios are correct

Re: Banned in California

#643

Post by inigyou »

Dig1t wrote: post #609
archagon wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And starts out with a Musk quote, to boot. (Assuming it's not made up wholesale; could not verify.) We need to push these people out of California.

By “these people” do you mean the people who actually make things? These banned industrial processes sum to making almost every physical object. The net effect is that it’s nearly illegal to make anything physical. Do you think that the state or country will do well in the long term if it’s basically illegal to actually make things? Also funny that you Musk derangement people will never actually engage with the conte…

I think "these people" referred to the people who write articles like this one.

Re: Banned in California

#644

Post by scottyah »

rob74 wrote: post #402
rswail wrote: post #248

This is whining from someone that doesn't want to be responsible for the externality of pollution that these manufacturing facilities generate. The regulations are to stop the pollution, if you can manufacture without polluting, then you'll comply and be able to manufacture. The problem is that there are other regulatory environments where the people aren't protected from pollution. What would fix that is enforcing t…

Thanks for confirming my suspicion! When I read phrases like "Battery cells require electrode coating with toxic solvents (NMP), electrolyte handling, and formation cycling. This is exactly why Tesla's Gigafactory went to Reno." I (as someone not very familiar with the subject) thought it's strange that California should regulate what kind of chemicals can be used in an industrial process. Of course, they don't - but…

That's certainly one interpretation. Most of the workers there keep doing what they do to protect the environment though, so it's entirely plausible that they are taking precautions to save the environment, but find the method in which the regulations are implemented to be slow or arcane. If it's anything like cybersecurity in the government, the laborious process of filling out irrelevant paperwork is orthogonal to actually accomplishing the initial goals.

Re: Banned in California

#645

Post by inigyou »

vablings wrote: post #572
psychoslave wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Robots bring very different tradeoffs on the table. But they are not built and maintained autonomously by the all mighty benevolent skynet, all working 100% on renewable energies abundant at geological scale. Plus scaling industrial production is one thing, but if proletarians are unable to afford them because wealth distribution is exponentially concentrated, what is the point?

>But they are not built and maintained autonomously by the all mighty benevolent skynet, all working 100% on renewable energies abundant at geological scale. No but they are significantly cheaper than an employee, A robot can pick up something and move it from A to B for upwards of 10 years. The programming and setup are a fraction of the time a robot can operate reliably I cannot stress to you how reliable and littl…

A factory isn't made of workers who pick up something and move it from A to B all day.

Re: Banned in California

#646

Post by inigyou »

parineum wrote: post #434
_DeadFred_ wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Company learns from mistakes, third time it does something it does it better, quicker'

The 4th one, in Germany, took 2 years.

Famously regulated to hell Germany. There is no way that Nevada and NY have more regulations than Germany. It really is all about having experience.

Re: Banned in California

#647

Post by Fischgericht »

joe_mamba wrote: post #266
Fischgericht wrote: post #243

There is a reason these kind of things are no longer possible in much of the western world and especially Europe-like US states like California: After the deindustrialization people started to enjoy healthy air and clear water. As always when it comes to "the good old times" or "make great again", your brain will remember very selectively. I used to live next to a large river for about 35 years. As a kid, it was forb…

>But the industry and the jobs have shrunken a lot And those people left jobless still have the right to vote. So you'll have to bribe them with welfare or invest in their upskilling, otherwise they'll turn to crime to survive and vote the most extremist parties to power that will undo all your environmentalism. It also leaves you economically and militarily vulnerable to the countries you outsourced all your manufac…

Just to clarify: When it comes to myself, my post has been a provocative hypothetical scenario in which I would need to make that choice.

In the real world, decided to move to a part of the planet where this question doesn't even come up, due to society having different priorities and a different base definition of "quality of life".

Re: Banned in California

#648

Post by scottyah »

overfeed wrote: post #578
eldavido wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I think there are two problems First: we may have gone too far toward anti-pollution. China has more naval vessels than the US. Everything changes when peace isn't a foregone conclusion, as it has been for the past 30? 50? years. Second: it's not the regulations per se, but the difficulty of dealing with the bureaucracy, particularly (a) long delays and (b) uncertainty. I run an electrical contractor, so this is…

> It's a collateral damage of all the (even well-intentioned, good) regulation that drives business away. I keep hearing this, but it never happens. Despite attempts to get jurisdictions to race to the bottom, businesses simply follow the money/markets: I can bet you a hefty sum that Alameda will never go without electrical contractors.

Everyone just says F the permits and becomes a youtube academy engineer. Then you start seeing all the issues that the permit system was designed to fix.

Half my house was built less-than-safely by the previous owner because getting the permits for the structures would be too expensive, time-consuming, and maybe not even possible.

The increased costs (time and money) of permits really changes the risk-reward.

Re: Banned in California

#649

Post by scottyah »

terminalshort wrote: post #468
rswail wrote: post #248

This is whining from someone that doesn't want to be responsible for the externality of pollution that these manufacturing facilities generate. The regulations are to stop the pollution, if you can manufacture without polluting, then you'll comply and be able to manufacture. The problem is that there are other regulatory environments where the people aren't protected from pollution. What would fix that is enforcing t…

China has reduced its pollution massively since the 90s while aggressively expanding its industrial output. And they have done it without excessive bureaucracy and delays in construction. In the US environmental laws are not about the environment at all. They are there to enrich lawyers who profit from multi year permitting processes and lawsuits.

Don't forget Insurance companies! They define and enforce a lot of the requirements too, it's also why all the new parks look the same.

Re: Banned in California

#650

Post by saalweachter »

AshleyGrant wrote: post #633
djha-skin wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...because dumping stuff into the middle of what is already a barren wasteland isn't actually a problem.

The desert is not a "barren wasteland." It is a valuable, vibrant ecosystem no different than any other.

The desert is an ocean with its life underground, and the perfect disguise up above.
Post reply on HN