6 ms·

I’m sorry but this is a ridiculous, unactionable answer that is functionally equivalent to “well we should make things better”. Yes of course we should, HOW? W

by blhack 7y ago

I’m sorry but this is a ridiculous, unactionable answer that is functionally equivalent to “well we should make things better”. Yes of course we should, HOW? We need more innovative solutions to these problems. I like seeing electric bicycle shares, I like seeing community-based, high density housing with shared kitchens and bathrooms, I like predictive diagnostics and telemedicine (although the FDA is fighting it).

philipov 7y ago
How about paying people more? That's pretty actionable. Jeff Bezos doesn't need 100 billion dollars. "Just get rid of unexpected expenses" is the one that sounds ridiculous to me.
- blhack 7y ago
  How is that actionable? Are you going to show up at Jeff Bezos’s house and rob him?
  - philipov 7y ago
    It's actionable by passing laws that limit the upside executives can extract from capital investments and raise minimum wage on large business. There will always be unexpected expenses, so you have to pay people enough to be able to save. Much better than making people dependent on those who control the mechanisms for allegedly limiting unexpected expenses; that's just a plan for increasing social control available to elites. High density housing with shared kitchens and bathrooms sounds like a dystopian hellhole designed to strip people of their dignity, and that's something you think is a good thing? We already saw tenement buildings in the 19th century.
    - blhack 7y ago
      People have been trying that for 100 years or so. So far it hasn’t worked.
      - ianleeclark 7y ago
        > People have been trying that for 100 years or so. So far it hasn’t worked. We didn't even have the minimum wage 100 years ago in the United States. How are you going to deride people for not offering solutions, then, when they offer viable solutions, attempt to magically will-away history?
        blhack 7y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights These ideas aren’t new. The idea of taxing the wealth even more is ALSO not new, and we already have tried it and had it fail. (France has tried this, as well as other European countries, with usually disastrous results).
        ianleeclark 7y ago
        Ahh, okay. I guess we'll just let people die in the streets then.
        kortilla 7y ago
        People aren’t dying in the streets because Bezos has 100 billion. Pointing to rich people is just a distraction for people who can’t do math. Even if you could magically trap all of them in the US and wealth tax them away, it’s a meaningless drop in the bucket. Seize all of the money from everyone with 50 million+ in the US and you don’t even have enough to pay for Medicare for all.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - hanniabu 7y ago
        Politicians have only been trying the bare minimum needed so they can continue enjoying benefits provided by lobbyists and keep the pesky annoying people (population) off their backs. It's hard to enjoy a life of luxury when you have people asking you to do your job and represent them.
    - spacecity1971 7y ago
      I think, instead of minimum wage hikes etc, that maybe putting a cap on the ratio of CEO pay to entry level employee would work more effectively.
      - philipov 7y ago
        I think that falls under the umbrella of limiting the upside executives can extract from capital investments. It's not an either-or proposition, though. Minimum wage or something like it is needed to make sure that money goes to workers rather than shareholders.
    - kortilla 7y ago
      How exactly do you think limiting upsides is meant to help the bottom? Tall poppy syndrome has never been an effective policy for helping the bottom. It’s strictly about taking down the rich. You can argue about taking down the rich (they have too much power, your jealous, etc), but don’t for a second pretend you’re doing it to uplift the poor. And what mechanism do you propose? Just a 100% tax on any gain over X%? Do you realize how easy it would be to then just sell at that threshold and invest in something else?
  - hnuser77 7y ago
    History is replete with the sudden removal or transfer of "private" property [1,2]. I'm not saying that this is good thing economically or morally, but when people get mad they vote for Hugo Chavez or whoever. I think this is highly unlikely in the US right now: in a "how many divisions does Jeff Bezos have" argument, I'm pretty sure you could make a case for the answer being "greater than zero" given regulatory capture and general financial/corporate influence on government. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reforms_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reforms_by_country [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nationalizations_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nationalizations_by_co...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- jonfw 7y ago
  I think you, I, and even Bezos would agree that he doesn't need 100 billion. Which is why he doesn't have anywhere near 100 billion dollars. He has ownership stakes in companies that have been estimated to be worth 100 billion dollars (it would be impossible to liquidate for anywhere near that valuation in practice, however) Net worth is not the same as resource allocation. This isn't the 1500s where you could plunder a castle and pillage their stores of grain. Bezo's net worth has very little to do with the distribution of housing, food, and medical care to poor people. Does he consume more housing, food, and medical care than average? Absolutely. Are his consumption levels even remotely similar to his absurd net worth? Absolutely not.
adamredwoods 7y ago
Peer-to-peer unsecured micro-loans at low interest rates, instead of GoFundMe.
- nopriorarrests 7y ago
  GoFundMe is a charity platform. How can p2p microloan platform replace it? So I'll make a micro loan fully know it will never be repaid?
- chasd00 7y ago
  an unsecured loan at a low interest rate doesn't make sense.
  - SkyBelow 7y ago
    I'm assuming the person involved knows of such micro loans and hasn't fully considered the costs and benefits that went into making them. I've covered for others before knowing I wouldn't get fully reimbursed because maintaining the relationship is worth the few dollars I lose a few times a year. Interest free unsecured micro loans which often aren't even paid back in full. But I wouldn't scale this up. I would lose more money and wouldn't be benefiting any existing relationships by doing so. The social benefit of the few dollars lost does not scale, and thus the reasoning behind existing unsecured microloans to friends does not scale.
maxerickson 7y ago
There's no need to put people in dorms with shared bathrooms and kitchens. Yeesh. We have plenty enough wealth to house people better than that and not even notice the cost.
- blhack 7y ago
  How is that yeesh exactly? They’re building these right now in Tempe Arizona, and NOT as dorms for college kids. I absolutely would have loved living in a building like that during my early 20s.
alkonaut 7y ago
> Yes of course we should, HOW? Look at how society works in countries that are better than your own at this. What is the fundamental differences in politics, media climate, labor market laws, health insurance education. Then vote for a politician or party that tries to improve things in that direction. I don't think there are technological quick fixes. The solution to "people live paycheck to paycheck" I think is e.g. improving employment security by e.g. not having healthcare tied to employment which keeps people in low paying jobs. Ensuring everyone can organize so employers pay more, and so on.
- Frondo 7y ago
  The two democratic front-runners have solutions for this: * strengthen union membership (union jobs pay an average of 13% better for the same work, and that's with union membership at an all-time low in the US), * reduce the ability of money-holding industries like these people to extract so much (like what Elizabeth Warren's CFPB has been doing, even with current meddling from the administration), * contain costs for the most expensive things in American life (health care -- some sort of universal coverage plan, and education -- student debt forgiveness and cheaper education options), * raising the minimum wage (which, had it tracked productivity in the US and not left unchanged since the 90s, would now be something like $20 an hour) that's off the top of my head. Andrew Yang has his "freedom dividend" which, the more you get into the weeds, the less of a benefit it'll seem to have, but that's even another idea. These are all ideas floated in opposition to the current administration, which wants to weaken unions, keeps fiddling with even the shitty Obamacare to take health care back to the bad old days, and so on. So, people are talking about it, and have plans drawn on what other countries are doing more successfully -- no real reason they wouldn't work here, except for the historical baggage and pulling-up-the-ladder that dominates US political discourse.
nopriorarrests 7y ago
>I like seeing community-based, high density housing with shared kitchens and bathrooms In soviet russia, kommunalki host you (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communal_apartment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communal_apartment)
batty_alex 7y ago
> I’m sorry but this is a ridiculous, unactionable answer that is functionally equivalent to “well we should make things better”. Your argument is that no one should have a conversation unless they have an action plan. > I like seeing electric bicycle shares, I like seeing community-based, high density housing with shared kitchens and bathrooms, I like predictive diagnostics and telemedicine (although the FDA is fighting it). These are all solutions for companies to make money from problems that could be solved by government-provided healthcare, better public transit, and subsidized housing (not just projects).
twic 7y ago
Just utterly unable to process "reduce inequality" being "ridiculous, unactionable". blhack, google something called "left wing politics", it's something that's been around for a while, but evidently not everyone has heard of it.

by blhack 7y ago

philipov 7y ago

How about paying people more? That's pretty actionable. Jeff Bezos doesn't need 100 billion dollars. "Just get rid of unexpected expenses" is the one that sounds ridiculous to me.

blhack 7y ago
How is that actionable? Are you going to show up at Jeff Bezos’s house and rob him?
- philipov 7y ago
  It's actionable by passing laws that limit the upside executives can extract from capital investments and raise minimum wage on large business. There will always be unexpected expenses, so you have to pay people enough to be able to save. Much better than making people dependent on those who control the mechanisms for allegedly limiting unexpected expenses; that's just a plan for increasing social control available to elites. High density housing with shared kitchens and bathrooms sounds like a dystopian hellhole designed to strip people of their dignity, and that's something you think is a good thing? We already saw tenement buildings in the 19th century.
  - blhack 7y ago
    People have been trying that for 100 years or so. So far it hasn’t worked.
    - ianleeclark 7y ago
      > People have been trying that for 100 years or so. So far it hasn’t worked. We didn't even have the minimum wage 100 years ago in the United States. How are you going to deride people for not offering solutions, then, when they offer viable solutions, attempt to magically will-away history?
      - blhack 7y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights These ideas aren’t new. The idea of taxing the wealth even more is ALSO not new, and we already have tried it and had it fail. (France has tried this, as well as other European countries, with usually disastrous results).
        ianleeclark 7y ago
        Ahh, okay. I guess we'll just let people die in the streets then.
        kortilla 7y ago
        People aren’t dying in the streets because Bezos has 100 billion. Pointing to rich people is just a distraction for people who can’t do math. Even if you could magically trap all of them in the US and wealth tax them away, it’s a meaningless drop in the bucket. Seize all of the money from everyone with 50 million+ in the US and you don’t even have enough to pay for Medicare for all.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - hanniabu 7y ago
      Politicians have only been trying the bare minimum needed so they can continue enjoying benefits provided by lobbyists and keep the pesky annoying people (population) off their backs. It's hard to enjoy a life of luxury when you have people asking you to do your job and represent them.
  - spacecity1971 7y ago
    I think, instead of minimum wage hikes etc, that maybe putting a cap on the ratio of CEO pay to entry level employee would work more effectively.
    - philipov 7y ago
      I think that falls under the umbrella of limiting the upside executives can extract from capital investments. It's not an either-or proposition, though. Minimum wage or something like it is needed to make sure that money goes to workers rather than shareholders.
  - kortilla 7y ago
    How exactly do you think limiting upsides is meant to help the bottom? Tall poppy syndrome has never been an effective policy for helping the bottom. It’s strictly about taking down the rich. You can argue about taking down the rich (they have too much power, your jealous, etc), but don’t for a second pretend you’re doing it to uplift the poor. And what mechanism do you propose? Just a 100% tax on any gain over X%? Do you realize how easy it would be to then just sell at that threshold and invest in something else?
- hnuser77 7y ago
  History is replete with the sudden removal or transfer of "private" property [1,2]. I'm not saying that this is good thing economically or morally, but when people get mad they vote for Hugo Chavez or whoever. I think this is highly unlikely in the US right now: in a "how many divisions does Jeff Bezos have" argument, I'm pretty sure you could make a case for the answer being "greater than zero" given regulatory capture and general financial/corporate influence on government. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reforms_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reforms_by_country [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nationalizations_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nationalizations_by_co...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jonfw 7y ago
I think you, I, and even Bezos would agree that he doesn't need 100 billion. Which is why he doesn't have anywhere near 100 billion dollars. He has ownership stakes in companies that have been estimated to be worth 100 billion dollars (it would be impossible to liquidate for anywhere near that valuation in practice, however) Net worth is not the same as resource allocation. This isn't the 1500s where you could plunder a castle and pillage their stores of grain. Bezo's net worth has very little to do with the distribution of housing, food, and medical care to poor people. Does he consume more housing, food, and medical care than average? Absolutely. Are his consumption levels even remotely similar to his absurd net worth? Absolutely not.

adamredwoods 7y ago

Peer-to-peer unsecured micro-loans at low interest rates, instead of GoFundMe.

nopriorarrests 7y ago
GoFundMe is a charity platform. How can p2p microloan platform replace it? So I'll make a micro loan fully know it will never be repaid?
chasd00 7y ago
an unsecured loan at a low interest rate doesn't make sense.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  I'm assuming the person involved knows of such micro loans and hasn't fully considered the costs and benefits that went into making them. I've covered for others before knowing I wouldn't get fully reimbursed because maintaining the relationship is worth the few dollars I lose a few times a year. Interest free unsecured micro loans which often aren't even paid back in full. But I wouldn't scale this up. I would lose more money and wouldn't be benefiting any existing relationships by doing so. The social benefit of the few dollars lost does not scale, and thus the reasoning behind existing unsecured microloans to friends does not scale.

maxerickson 7y ago

There's no need to put people in dorms with shared bathrooms and kitchens. Yeesh. We have plenty enough wealth to house people better than that and not even notice the cost.

blhack 7y ago
How is that yeesh exactly? They’re building these right now in Tempe Arizona, and NOT as dorms for college kids. I absolutely would have loved living in a building like that during my early 20s.

alkonaut 7y ago

> Yes of course we should, HOW? Look at how society works in countries that are better than your own at this. What is the fundamental differences in politics, media climate, labor market laws, health insurance education. Then vote for a politician or party that tries to improve things in that direction. I don't think there are technological quick fixes. The solution to "people live paycheck to paycheck" I think is e.g. improving employment security by e.g. not having healthcare tied to employment which keeps people in low paying jobs. Ensuring everyone can organize so employers pay more, and so on.

Frondo 7y ago
The two democratic front-runners have solutions for this: * strengthen union membership (union jobs pay an average of 13% better for the same work, and that's with union membership at an all-time low in the US), * reduce the ability of money-holding industries like these people to extract so much (like what Elizabeth Warren's CFPB has been doing, even with current meddling from the administration), * contain costs for the most expensive things in American life (health care -- some sort of universal coverage plan, and education -- student debt forgiveness and cheaper education options), * raising the minimum wage (which, had it tracked productivity in the US and not left unchanged since the 90s, would now be something like $20 an hour) that's off the top of my head. Andrew Yang has his "freedom dividend" which, the more you get into the weeds, the less of a benefit it'll seem to have, but that's even another idea. These are all ideas floated in opposition to the current administration, which wants to weaken unions, keeps fiddling with even the shitty Obamacare to take health care back to the bad old days, and so on. So, people are talking about it, and have plans drawn on what other countries are doing more successfully -- no real reason they wouldn't work here, except for the historical baggage and pulling-up-the-ladder that dominates US political discourse.

nopriorarrests 7y ago

>I like seeing community-based, high density housing with shared kitchens and bathrooms In soviet russia, kommunalki host you (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communal_apartment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communal_apartment)

batty_alex 7y ago

> I’m sorry but this is a ridiculous, unactionable answer that is functionally equivalent to “well we should make things better”. Your argument is that no one should have a conversation unless they have an action plan. > I like seeing electric bicycle shares, I like seeing community-based, high density housing with shared kitchens and bathrooms, I like predictive diagnostics and telemedicine (although the FDA is fighting it). These are all solutions for companies to make money from problems that could be solved by government-provided healthcare, better public transit, and subsidized housing (not just projects).

twic 7y ago

Just utterly unable to process "reduce inequality" being "ridiculous, unactionable". blhack, google something called "left wing politics", it's something that's been around for a while, but evidently not everyone has heard of it.