8 ms·

Incentiving rich people to buy expansive tech (and still at lost for the riches) help the technologies to ride the cost curve and bring it to the masses.

by hokkos 7y ago

buboard 7y ago
that can't be true as rich people are by definition a small minority. why not just give the subsidies directly to the companies
- rootsudo 7y ago
  I would also say that Rich people pave the way for adaption. For example, look at prices of flights. Before there was no "first class" everything was first class, now there are cabin options. While that example is a service, more proliferation of service == wider adaption == increased scale of economies == eventually prices come down for everyone.
  - buboard 7y ago
    That would be true if solar roofs were some novel technology that the rich would adopt first, and then the rest. This is a remix of existing technology, much like the iphone. The rich don't have roofs, they have domes or yachts. The poor don't own roofs. This is directed at the middle class squarely and only. To the extent that richer people adopt this, it's mostly for signaling reasons and not because it affords them some luxury they didn't have (like flights did). Your analogy is more appropriate for space tourism.
    - DFHippie 7y ago
      > it's mostly for signaling reasons This presumes rich people never have good motives and any appearance of morality or civic-mindedness they might show is a self-aggrandizing sham. This seems unlikely.
  - tibiapejagala 7y ago
    The trickle-down of the left.
    - vostok 7y ago
      There is nothing left wing about this...
    - xwdv 7y ago
      You mean the right. This is exactly what is meant by trickle down economics. The left just likes to pretend that because money isn’t going directly in your pocket it’s all a scam, but that’s not the truth. Sorry.
      - DFHippie 7y ago
        > This is exactly what is meant by trickle down economics. This is not true. Trickle down economics is the theory that money given to rich people will enrich poor people because the rich people will use the money to buy goods and services the production of which will require the labor of poor people. That is, this extra money at the disposal of rich people will create an economic domino effect such that money will ultimately end up at the disposal of poor people. In a trivial sense this is true. The theory is only interesting if this is an efficient way to increase economic activity generally without deleterious side effects. But it never was the theory that giving money to rich people would spur research and development such that services ultimately were cheaper. As to whether it's a scam, that is another matter. The allegation then is that the boosters of trickle down economics do not believe their own claims as to the efficiency of this process. That is, they believe, because it is tautologically true, that this will enrich those who are already rich, and they desire this, and the story about the efficiency of this process is a tall tale to salve consciences or win over rubes.
      - gzer0 7y ago
        Except that time and time again, it has been shown that it absolutely does not work. "[I]f the income share of the top 20 percent (the rich) increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20 percent (the poor) is associated with higher GDP growth. [1]" [1] https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Staff-Discussion-Notes/Issues/2016/12/31/Causes-and-Consequences-of-Income-Inequality-A-Global-Perspective-42986 https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Staff-Discussion-Notes/I...
- dd36 7y ago
  That wouldn’t account for demand.
- caseysoftware 7y ago
  Because that disconnects the company from actual demand. Production of early versions is always more expensive because of the research & development, creation/configuration of the machines, etc, etc but the marginal cost goes down drastically. The numbers work out even better as you can amortize those early costs over a larger and larger production run. This means v2 and later editions are cheaper. It's text book "economies of scale"
- adrianmonk 7y ago
  Why not just do unit tests instead of integration tests? Because you want to create a system that provides feedback on the entire end to end process. You subsidize purchases because The thing you want to incentivize is not making solar panels, but bringing solar panels all the way to market. You are trying to get the market off the ground, not just the technology.
- coding123 7y ago
  They have to make the sale this way
fortran77 7y ago
Let rich people get the buggy version 1.0 stuff and help the technology mature for everyone! I'll wait a few years and get the debugged version 2.0 or 3.0 for 1/10th the price. Look at 4K TV sets, for example.
- belltaco 7y ago
  Out of the loop here, what were the big issues with early 4K TVs?
  - gambiting 7y ago
    4K resolution, but only support for HDMI input at 30hz, or having to use some incredibly fiddly solutions where two cables had to be used at once. Internal image processing was too slow, so you would see 100ms delay which made them too slow for playing games. And then the quality of 4K panels was frequently far below good 1080p, but for more money.
- amayne 7y ago
  Or cellular phones, computers, refrigeration, microwaves, electricity, AC and a thousand other things that only rich people used to be able to afford. Just about any luxury of the rich that can be produced more efficiently over time makes its way to the average consumer.
Clubber 7y ago
People who pay more than $8500 in taxes can benefit from the tax break. I'm not sure I'd consider that rich.
- navigatesol 7y ago
  >I'm not sure I'd consider that rich. People who are installing $40,000+ roofs on 2000+ sqft homes are not rich by your standards? Or do you truly believe these panels will "print money"?
  - sigstoat 7y ago
    every home has a roof, and none of them are cheap to replace. it's a small factor difference in amount you're financing.
    - navigatesol 7y ago
      >it's a small factor difference in amount you're financing. This is a magnificently out of touch comment. You think the difference between an asphalt shingle roof vs a 100-year slate tile roof is a "small factor"?
- Pfhreak 7y ago
  That represents an income of at least $70,000/year, assuming only the standard deduction and single. If you are married, it's closer to $100,000 income. That puts you at the 62th and 77th percentile, at a minimum to get the full tax deduction.
- jandrese 7y ago
  Even if your taxes aren't that high you can roll the remainder of the credit forward to next year.
macawfish 7y ago
The masses don't own houses to put these roofs on. Because of concentration of wealth and return on capital exacerbating that concentration. Because of rent seeking pyramid schemes. Which I imagine artificially restricts demand for improvements like solar panel roofs: who has more inventive to invest in things like solar panel roofs? Owner occupants who are in it for the long term, or rent seeking landlords just trying to make their mortgage payments on time and turn a buck?
- belltaco 7y ago
  >The masses don't own houses to put these roofs on Is this based off an SV mindset? There are plenty of homeowners that aren't rich around the country. Plus less pollution in the air helps the masses too, with fewer health issues and less extreme weather on a long term basis.
  - gambiting 7y ago
    Of course it is, and unfortunately you see it a lot on HN - apparently no one in any country can afford houses anymore. It's like this Futurama joke - "no one drives in Manhattan anymore - there's too much traffic". On this side of the pond it's the London residents saying that no one except for the ultra rich can own houses, forgetting that in other parts of the country you can buy a (new!) house for as little as £100-120k.
    - macawfish 7y ago
      As little as? For many people living in those parts of the country that isn't as magically affordable as you might think!
      - gambiting 7y ago
        No? Because I live in one of those shitty parts of the country and since minimum wage laws still apply here turns out that saving £5k for a mortgage deposit isn't as impossible as saving £50k down in London is.
navigatesol 7y ago
>Incentiving rich people to buy expansive tech (and still at lost for the riches) help the technologies to ride the cost curve and bring it to the masses. Ah yes, trickle down never fails.
macspoofing 7y ago
No no. That's not how it works. Rich people have money, so they are perfect early adopters since they subsidize new technology until the technology gains economies of scale. But that's the key thing, they are using their own money to do that. It's not the same when you have the government subsidize their purchase.

Incentiving rich people to buy expansive tech (and still at lost for the riches) help the technologies to ride the cost curve and bring it to the masses.

by hokkos 7y ago

Incentiving rich people to buy expansive tech (and still at lost for the riches) help the technologies to ride the cost curve and bring it to the masses.

buboard 7y ago

that can't be true as rich people are by definition a small minority. why not just give the subsidies directly to the companies

rootsudo 7y ago
I would also say that Rich people pave the way for adaption. For example, look at prices of flights. Before there was no "first class" everything was first class, now there are cabin options. While that example is a service, more proliferation of service == wider adaption == increased scale of economies == eventually prices come down for everyone.
- buboard 7y ago
  That would be true if solar roofs were some novel technology that the rich would adopt first, and then the rest. This is a remix of existing technology, much like the iphone. The rich don't have roofs, they have domes or yachts. The poor don't own roofs. This is directed at the middle class squarely and only. To the extent that richer people adopt this, it's mostly for signaling reasons and not because it affords them some luxury they didn't have (like flights did). Your analogy is more appropriate for space tourism.
  - DFHippie 7y ago
    > it's mostly for signaling reasons This presumes rich people never have good motives and any appearance of morality or civic-mindedness they might show is a self-aggrandizing sham. This seems unlikely.
- tibiapejagala 7y ago
  The trickle-down of the left.
  - vostok 7y ago
    There is nothing left wing about this...
  - xwdv 7y ago
    You mean the right. This is exactly what is meant by trickle down economics. The left just likes to pretend that because money isn’t going directly in your pocket it’s all a scam, but that’s not the truth. Sorry.
    - DFHippie 7y ago
      > This is exactly what is meant by trickle down economics. This is not true. Trickle down economics is the theory that money given to rich people will enrich poor people because the rich people will use the money to buy goods and services the production of which will require the labor of poor people. That is, this extra money at the disposal of rich people will create an economic domino effect such that money will ultimately end up at the disposal of poor people. In a trivial sense this is true. The theory is only interesting if this is an efficient way to increase economic activity generally without deleterious side effects. But it never was the theory that giving money to rich people would spur research and development such that services ultimately were cheaper. As to whether it's a scam, that is another matter. The allegation then is that the boosters of trickle down economics do not believe their own claims as to the efficiency of this process. That is, they believe, because it is tautologically true, that this will enrich those who are already rich, and they desire this, and the story about the efficiency of this process is a tall tale to salve consciences or win over rubes.
    - gzer0 7y ago
      Except that time and time again, it has been shown that it absolutely does not work. "[I]f the income share of the top 20 percent (the rich) increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20 percent (the poor) is associated with higher GDP growth. [1]" [1] https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Staff-Discussion-Notes/Issues/2016/12/31/Causes-and-Consequences-of-Income-Inequality-A-Global-Perspective-42986 https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Staff-Discussion-Notes/I...
dd36 7y ago
That wouldn’t account for demand.
caseysoftware 7y ago
Because that disconnects the company from actual demand. Production of early versions is always more expensive because of the research & development, creation/configuration of the machines, etc, etc but the marginal cost goes down drastically. The numbers work out even better as you can amortize those early costs over a larger and larger production run. This means v2 and later editions are cheaper. It's text book "economies of scale"
adrianmonk 7y ago
Why not just do unit tests instead of integration tests? Because you want to create a system that provides feedback on the entire end to end process. You subsidize purchases because The thing you want to incentivize is not making solar panels, but bringing solar panels all the way to market. You are trying to get the market off the ground, not just the technology.
coding123 7y ago
They have to make the sale this way

fortran77 7y ago

Let rich people get the buggy version 1.0 stuff and help the technology mature for everyone! I'll wait a few years and get the debugged version 2.0 or 3.0 for 1/10th the price. Look at 4K TV sets, for example.

belltaco 7y ago
Out of the loop here, what were the big issues with early 4K TVs?
- gambiting 7y ago
  4K resolution, but only support for HDMI input at 30hz, or having to use some incredibly fiddly solutions where two cables had to be used at once. Internal image processing was too slow, so you would see 100ms delay which made them too slow for playing games. And then the quality of 4K panels was frequently far below good 1080p, but for more money.
amayne 7y ago
Or cellular phones, computers, refrigeration, microwaves, electricity, AC and a thousand other things that only rich people used to be able to afford. Just about any luxury of the rich that can be produced more efficiently over time makes its way to the average consumer.

Clubber 7y ago

People who pay more than $8500 in taxes can benefit from the tax break. I'm not sure I'd consider that rich.

navigatesol 7y ago
>I'm not sure I'd consider that rich. People who are installing $40,000+ roofs on 2000+ sqft homes are not rich by your standards? Or do you truly believe these panels will "print money"?
- sigstoat 7y ago
  every home has a roof, and none of them are cheap to replace. it's a small factor difference in amount you're financing.
  - navigatesol 7y ago
    >it's a small factor difference in amount you're financing. This is a magnificently out of touch comment. You think the difference between an asphalt shingle roof vs a 100-year slate tile roof is a "small factor"?
Pfhreak 7y ago
That represents an income of at least $70,000/year, assuming only the standard deduction and single. If you are married, it's closer to $100,000 income. That puts you at the 62th and 77th percentile, at a minimum to get the full tax deduction.
jandrese 7y ago
Even if your taxes aren't that high you can roll the remainder of the credit forward to next year.

macawfish 7y ago

The masses don't own houses to put these roofs on. Because of concentration of wealth and return on capital exacerbating that concentration. Because of rent seeking pyramid schemes. Which I imagine artificially restricts demand for improvements like solar panel roofs: who has more inventive to invest in things like solar panel roofs? Owner occupants who are in it for the long term, or rent seeking landlords just trying to make their mortgage payments on time and turn a buck?

belltaco 7y ago
>The masses don't own houses to put these roofs on Is this based off an SV mindset? There are plenty of homeowners that aren't rich around the country. Plus less pollution in the air helps the masses too, with fewer health issues and less extreme weather on a long term basis.
- gambiting 7y ago
  Of course it is, and unfortunately you see it a lot on HN - apparently no one in any country can afford houses anymore. It's like this Futurama joke - "no one drives in Manhattan anymore - there's too much traffic". On this side of the pond it's the London residents saying that no one except for the ultra rich can own houses, forgetting that in other parts of the country you can buy a (new!) house for as little as £100-120k.
  - macawfish 7y ago
    As little as? For many people living in those parts of the country that isn't as magically affordable as you might think!
    - gambiting 7y ago
      No? Because I live in one of those shitty parts of the country and since minimum wage laws still apply here turns out that saving £5k for a mortgage deposit isn't as impossible as saving £50k down in London is.

navigatesol 7y ago

>Incentiving rich people to buy expansive tech (and still at lost for the riches) help the technologies to ride the cost curve and bring it to the masses. Ah yes, trickle down never fails.

macspoofing 7y ago

No no. That's not how it works. Rich people have money, so they are perfect early adopters since they subsidize new technology until the technology gains economies of scale. But that's the key thing, they are using their own money to do that. It's not the same when you have the government subsidize their purchase.