whybroke

39 ms·

331.
by whybroke 12y ago
There is never going to be serious public criticism of China in the west because there are vast numbers of western organizations making vast sums there. The public will see little to nothing that might ask for trade restrictions as a respon
332.
by whybroke 12y ago
Where did the land owner get the land? In a great many places (such as North America), it was stolen in the not so distance past and a great deal more rudely than taxation. If that act is justified as taking under utilized resources then we
333.
by whybroke 12y ago
And non-competition clauses are unenforceable in California. Yet other states wonder why no mater how many tax incentive they give business, silicon valley remains stubbornly in CA.
334.
by whybroke 12y ago
You assume that such wealth was earned in the first place which is rarely the case and is less so every year. The meritocracy is broken and will be so exactly to the degree that there is inheritance, the two are directly connected. Inherita
335.
by whybroke 12y ago
>while the average worker can be anywhere in their career including eventually being a CEO one day From the article: > our indifference lies in a distinctly American cultural optimism. At the core of the American Dream is the belief t
336.
by whybroke 12y ago
There maybe a sort of monopoly here but monopolies never set their prices to free (unless they're trying to destroy competitors which is obvious not the case here) There may indeed be grotesque stratification problems with the system b
337.
by whybroke 12y ago
Also, in the past, farm labor wages were high enough to fund an endless road trip including gasoline, cheap hotels, restaurant food etc. To such an extent that it is how Jack Kerouac and friends paid for the journey in "On the Road&quo
338.
by whybroke 12y ago
Correct. Labor shortages have conspicuously caused an increase in wages at all times even as far back as the middle ages [1]. The people in power today respond exactly as they have in every case since the dawn of times: to suppress it. [1]
339.
by whybroke 12y ago
So the same companies that conspire to suppress wages in every other way are pushing for an immigration policy that does the opposite? Um, no.
340.
by whybroke 12y ago
No, what you said is just simply not true at all. Interesting how making completely vacuous denials devoid of any support utterly fails to advance a conversation. Perhaps you will explain what the point of wasting time typing them is. Or le
341.
by whybroke 12y ago
I was briefly answering a two sentence Las Vegas analogy. Please do expand on the many details my tweet sized comment omitted if you wish.
342.
by whybroke 12y ago
I am no lover of the current system and would love to see it changed to be more equitable. But for better or worse as things stand right now, stock markets and prosperity, even of ordinary people, are apparently very strongly correlated. Id
343.
by whybroke 12y ago
They did that with tulip-bulbs once. It did not work out well. The securities market isn't a place to have fun, it's a vital machine on which all our prosperity depends. Treating stocks as a blind gamble means money is not chasing
344.
by whybroke 12y ago
True, and it is not like Las Vegas, it is like buying a used car which is a gamble exactly to the degree there is an information deferential. The less disclosure to the unwary, the more opportunity for disaster. The new SEC rule affects dis
345.
by whybroke 12y ago
There are regulations that require thorough disclosure to investors. There is an exemption if all investors are "accredited". Rather than remove the exemption, the SEC has effectively removed the disclosure requirement. The rule d
346.
by whybroke 12y ago
Of course one should hold all ones beliefs lightly. But to dismiss quality evidence because of crackpot comments is irrational. I know nothing about gene therapy. But if you find a venue where peer reviewed papers on global warming are gree
347.
by whybroke 12y ago
>Edit: On why skepticism is important, its because propaganda is everywhere https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9269760 There is here too. Not from The Atlantic but in the form of right wing ideological sock-puppets. If
348.
by whybroke 12y ago
Indeed it's more likely to boost the economy since people living on basic income would almost certainly spend ever penny such money would flow instantly into the economy. Also it could actually create new business opportunities. If the
349.
by whybroke 12y ago
Wanting to move there is also a believable cause of high cost of living. But since housing prices are out pacing wages worldwide, I think not. Indeed the NY Times reports 90 cities as "unaffordable" in the US alone.[1] If there is
350.
by whybroke 12y ago
> This buy-up argument is impossible in a free market. On the contrary it is an inevitable risk to any commodity that can be monopolized. The monopolist can make more from the resource because he will be able to charge more than the curr
351.
by whybroke 12y ago
If geography is the only problem then it should be easy to answer this guy's question. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9255710
352.
by whybroke 12y ago
41/58 countries with universal healthcare are in the developed world. 84/100 mega-cites are in the third world. I don't know how this could confuse you but feel free to google inductive reasoning.
353.
by whybroke 12y ago
He also implies that the firemen, ambulances drives and nurses who protect a city subject to earthquakes shouldn't live in it (and thereby likely be absent when an earthquake isolates it by knocking down the bridges again). But logic m
354.
by whybroke 12y ago
So if India and all its cities had 4 times as many people would it be better off? The population is so high that wages are so low that talented people are fleeing the country. Indeed if mega-cities were a good thing then Pakistan, Nigeria a
355.
by whybroke 12y ago
Very true. But the unemployed and their (inevitably reduced wages) are the result of a larger failed system. Effectively the market considers them excess population for their area. And as business expenses rise to cover the inflated cost of
356.
by whybroke 12y ago
And therefore there is a direct arithmetic connection between rent control benefit and tenant age. The article involves improbable convoluted statistical conjectures yet is incapable of noticing that extremely simple correlation. Perhaps mo
357.
by whybroke 12y ago
How would San Francisco be better with 2 million people than with 1 million? Should it grow until it is as crowded as the cities people are fleeing in order to come to SF? What will happen is not that increased supply will have any effect b
358.
by whybroke 12y ago
> determined by ... political processes Part of which is playing out here where people of privilege are working out a story that allows them to displace an older population dependent on rent control so that they can get that housing.
359.
by whybroke 12y ago
Astroturf of course, notice the conversations around the FCC ruling. How to deal with it is an interesting and I'd say very important problem to community viability. On the upside it's certainly complimentary to the perceived infl
360.
by whybroke 12y ago
The price will increase no mater what you do so long as you rely on an uncontrolled free market in real-estate. At some point prices will make employing people there impracticable due to wages and commercial rental. In the current system, t

More ›