We Can All Become Job Creators • Hacker News Board

Re: We Can All Become Job Creators

#91

Post by forza » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 7:50 AM UTC

lupatus wrote: post #71

prostoalex wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Denmark, they tax fatty foods to discourage them. In the States, we tax payroll.

A vice tax on fatty foods makes no sense if (1) you are trying to improve the health of the populace, and (2) you know about the health benefits of ketogenic diets[1]. If those are Denmark's goals, then they should instead be taxing sugary foods. Otherwise, I am forced to conclude that Denmark is either (a) dumb, or (b) purposefully decreasing their citizens' health. [1] http://www.ketogenic-diet-resource.com/

"In July 2010, Denmark imposed a tax on sugary junk food."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2011/10/02/denmark-fat-t...

Re: We Can All Become Job Creators

#92

Post by rdl » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 8:38 AM UTC

randomdata wrote: post #68

nordsieck wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Tech companies can wait for the best of the best. Why aren't those software companies hiring that guy who lost his manufacturing job for $9/hr instead? It is because they don't need to. They can wait for the one who is great at the job." That's not true at all. A crappy farm hand might harvest at 1/2 or 1/3 the rate of a great one. A crappy developer will actively damage a project. It is simply not possible to incre…

A crappy developer will actively damage a project. A bad farmhand will damage equipment worth far more than most pieces of software, destroy crops and animals, the list goes on and on. I can say from experience in both that farming is significantly more challenging than programming. Even a small farmer will have several millions of dollars worth of equipment that is easily broken in the wrong hands. Like good program…

I think there's a big difference between $5-15/hr illegals used to pick crops seasonally by hand, vs. basically apprentice/permanent party farmhands who would touch a $500k+ piece of machinery.

It's pretty easy to evaluate the work product of a fruit picker in a field, compared to a "knowledge worker".

Re: We Can All Become Job Creators

#93

Post by brc » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 10:04 AM UTC

nradov wrote: post #85

brc wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you totally. The focus should be on increasing wealth through more production of everything. Somehow we've ended up in a situation where everyone focuses on job creation at the expense of everything else. Right now most families need two parents working in order to provide. I think many would be happier with one less parent working if they could maintain the same standard of living. That would be possibl…

That wouldn't help. People's expectations for standard of living would rise, and both parents would continue working just to keep up with the Joneses. Furthermore, in most families the main reason for needing dual incomes is to pay for housing. Increasing productivity does nothing for affordable housing. Real estate prices tend to rise right along with average incomes.

Sorry, but you've missed my point.

The one-parent-quitting description is to show that the same amount of output/production/work can happen with half the people if they are twice as productive. This is to show that increased productivity (more product, same amount of work) is more important than jobs.

Increased productivity gives more of everything for everyone. We all know this to be true - if you spend all day napping in the sun, you get nothing achieved. If you spend all day working, you can get many things achieved.

Re: We Can All Become Job Creators

#94

Post by xtracto » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 10:40 AM UTC

wisty wrote: post #35

pitdesi wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easier access to credit is a huge detriment to small businesses, in ways that we (startup-folks) don't think about... One example - the typical small business restaurant. It is a VERY different businesses than the startups that we create. You can't create a restaurant without any money, for example... You can bootstrap an online business by not paying yourself, but when you have to pay for a building and kitchen etc,…

Restaurants can be bootstrapped. A mobile vending unit costs ~20k. Add an extra 10k of permits, and basic inventory, and you could sell coffee somewhere near a transport hub. From there, you could add a few food items, build up savings, then lease a small restaurant. The problem is, regulators can be very unfriendly to mobile vendors.

I have seen this first hand, starting with worse conditions.

This guy ( http://www.expopyme.com.mx/vpabellon.php?cat=4&cid=33373... ) started selling ice cream in a bike like this ( http://www.yesh.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/t-370.jp... ).

He sold to the local University for about 10 years, until he got money to rent a very small place in front of a hospital.

From there he continued growing and growing and now I know they have 3 good size shops in different parts of the city.

I know because my mother has been teaching in the local Univ. for 25 years and met this guy in the beginning.

>The problem is, regulators can be very unfriendly to mobile vendors.

I think at the end this is what matter the most. In my home town (well... in all Mexico in general), cycling ice-cream makers do not need to comply with a lot of laws (as long as nobody dies because of the ice cream...)

Re: We Can All Become Job Creators

#95

Post by justincormack » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 12:18 PM UTC

Goladus wrote: post #40

hugh3 wrote: post #3

We need to stop talking about "job creation" and start talking about "wealth creation". It's easy to create jobs -- e.g. I can go round breaking windows with rocks and create jobs for glaziers. But creating jobs that create wealth -- that is, to create an opportunity for someone else to join their labour with my capital in order to build something that someone wishes to pay for, thus enriching all three of us... well…

> We need to stop talking about "job creation" and start talking about "wealth creation". It's more than wealth creation, though. People must also be paid fairly for the wealth created. Wealth creation is happening, the problem is that the rewards for it are all being skimmed away and those in the middle are being squeezed-- squeezed out of their homes, out of their cars, and out of their educations. The housing boom…

The housing boom created no wealth. None at all. When house prices go up nothing is created, houses dont get better or more numerous (building does that). Wealth is redistributed but not created.

Re: We Can All Become Job Creators

#96

Post by eru » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 1:59 PM UTC

fraserharris wrote: post #77

eru wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, I could find property to buy outright, but it seems that wouldn't being taking advantage of any real leverage. Why are you looking for leverage? Isn't 50% quite a lot of leverage?

Its actually 100% leverage of his investment.

Thanks for the correction! I didn't remember the exact definition.

Re: We Can All Become Job Creators

#97

Post by eru » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 2:01 PM UTC

brc wrote: post #81

eru wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, I could find property to buy outright, but it seems that wouldn't being taking advantage of any real leverage. Why are you looking for leverage? Isn't 50% quite a lot of leverage?

Leverage is a returns multiplier. You might make 5-10% return on Real Estate, but add borrowing and you can increase the returns dramatically. As long as the returns are better than the cost of the borrowed money, everyone wins. If it doesn't, he loses because leverage works both ways. Leverage is vitally important in making money, whether it is through getting other people to work for you, or getting other peoples m…

Yes. And he also said how people made lots of mistakes with money earlier. Lots of people had leveraged position in real estate.

Re: We Can All Become Job Creators

#98

Post by redwood » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 2:13 PM UTC

amikula wrote: post #15

fleitz wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At that point we've likely reached a point of abundance and can use the non-human labour we're using to provide a nice life for everyone. At that point the major metrics of the economy switch from something akin to GNP to Gross National Happiness.

Actually the people who had the wealth to build the non-human labor force become the rulers of our society. Their corporations will become the new governments and campaign against one another for control of resources. What happens at that point is anyone's guess.

I believe we're approaching this point. The least noticed big news of the year was Foxconn's announcement that it plans to replace its workers with robots in the next two years. The fact that robots have reached even the Chinese labor price means robots will always be preferred when manufacturing returns to the US. So how will we distribute the wealth? I suspect the masses will vote in a form of distribution and would rather see it some kind of force employment than a government handout.

Re: We Can All Become Job Creators

#99

Post by lupatus » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 4:58 PM UTC

forza wrote: post #91

lupatus wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A vice tax on fatty foods makes no sense if (1) you are trying to improve the health of the populace, and (2) you know about the health benefits of ketogenic diets[1]. If those are Denmark's goals, then they should instead be taxing sugary foods. Otherwise, I am forced to conclude that Denmark is either (a) dumb, or (b) purposefully decreasing their citizens' health. [1] http://www.ketogenic-diet-resource.com/

"In July 2010, Denmark imposed a tax on sugary junk food." http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2011/10/02/denmark-fat-t...

Awesome!!

And, seriously, why the downvotes on the grandparent comment?

On a ketogenic diet, I've lost 40 lbs of fat in 18 months, and my wife has lost ~100 lbs during the same time period. Eating fat doesn't make you fat.

Re: We Can All Become Job Creators

#100

Post by lupatus » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 4:59 PM UTC

anon808 wrote: post #79

lupatus wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll bite. Drug dealers/producers produce products that provide the user with exotic and novel experiences and which may increase the user's sociability. Similar to the travel industry and a personal life coach in a small form factor, drugs are good/service that many people seem to want.

If you believe that drugs add value to people's life, then you've chosen the world you want to live in. I chose to believe that (addictive) drugs are really a tax levied on people with weaknesses to be exploited (we all have weaknesses that can be exploited). The purchase of addictive drugs doesn't create value but redistributes wealth from the folks that are weak to the exploiters of that weakness. I don't value dru…

I don't believe that (see the devil's advocate tags...). But, some people obviously do.