Capitalism see labor as a cost, and though outsourcing, overseaing, and automation attempts to drive that cost to as close to zero as possible. The fundamental problem is that people derive great benefit and satisfaction from their labor, their participation in production, and the knowledge of a job well done. Capitalism, over a long time, will always deny people that satisfaction. Young people can feel that truth in their everyday. It's Capitalism's fundamental, and intrinsic flaw. Work matters, and it is not a cost, it is a benefit.
Have you looked into the MGTOW community? You sound just like them. They are smart guys, but they get a lot of shit because they push back against those exact social expectations that you talk about.
I agree. Terrible article. Could rank up there with one of the worst this year.
Stupid outliers in response to technological innovations are not representative of the potential of the technology. Instead, focus on what the technology is capable of doing. Focus on what is proven, and what is possible.
This from the man, Lynn, who said that we'd be making houses the same way we make shoes. He's a techno carpet bagger. He takes the most current and promising technologies, from shoe makers, to car makers, and then rails at the building establishment for not taking that technology and his lead seriously. When in fact, his actual works are bonded kids toys. And that's the problem with these guys, they talk big game, but when it comes to implementation, they barely elicit a shrug.
Structural steel was adopted quickly once it was clear that it was superior to all other existing construction technologies. The same thing would be true with glue-this and glue-that, if it turned out the be true. It's not. It's the architectural equivalent of vapor-ware.
Sorry Herr Lynn, we are still waiting for your shoe houses.
2. They built the Panoramic in the time it took WeLive to do their interior improvements. And when they were working on it, it was just a skeleton crew. The whole time I was thinking ... how are they financing the building? This is insane.
3. WeLive has a main floor common space, where they've had two? events since they opened. Both were modestly attended, but certainly had a college dorm feel to it. Not anything anyone over 30 would be interested in.
4. There appears to be value-added services in the common area, a cafe, a juice bar, etc, but I hardly see it used.
5. They continue to putter around the building, putting a whole new set of scaffolding up, taking it down, putting it up again, doing some painting, taking the taping down, putting it up again, and I wonder ... what on earth are they doing? They had a year to get this right, what's the hold up.
6. Compared to the huge number of apartments going in across the street -- 1900? WeLive is a ghost town.
(ps. the Trinity has major problems going in to this as well. I see it as a huge bungle for the Planners. But I am waiting to see what the Market Street retail looks like. If it's anything like the Mission Street side, it'll keep that side of Market dead.)
So, in short, WeLive is some capital intensive problems, that a lot of smart people are trying to solve, just up the block and across the street, and nothing I see puts WeLive ahead of these guys.
Especially when landlords stop leasing to them at .5x, so that they can turn around and dormify the building and get 2x for it. Not with Panorama and Trinity right there.
Can Yahoo get its money back from its current CEO? Or did they really pay someone to run this ship aground?
At the time when they were looking, I wrote Jerry an open letter about what I thought could be done. Sure I'm a nobody, but none of the ideas were even, through the chances of good business, implemented. Instead there was a fancy rebranding, and a targeting of women's lifestyle channels. And now this.
I'm glad we have a competitive economy, or else I could imagine Yahoo becoming the service that sucked, but that everyone still used.
37% of what? equal what? did I miss the suggested number? I see that it's dependent on the number of people that you are considering, from 10 to 100, but that leaves a difference of between 4 and 40 people to date. How do we know how many people, total, we would date, when we are just starting?
I get the feeling that this article only has half the math.
As an aside, I've heard that the optimum number for this equation is in fact 12. So 12 is the 38%. But this article doesn't confirm that - as far as I can tell.
I bring stats, and sources to refute baseless statements, and I get down voted. Any ideology that requires false statistics will fail.
In single income families, the income is shared, the household or domestic partners work in not uncompensated. And as to expenditures, the domestic partner, primarily the female childrearer is in charge of a huge percentage of that income, for everything from vehicle purchases, vacations, furniture, clothes, etc.
With women controlling between 80 and 95 percent of household incomes, and being responsible for 85 percent of all brand purchases, worldwide, women do not do uncompensated labour. This fallacy needs to be brought to an end.
Strange that BlahBlah is made to seem so hot when ZimRide had to convert to Lyft to make any headway. I wonder if ZimRide overstepped their transition, or if BlahBlah executed better, or if Lyft is simply a richer pot.
What is interesting is that Lyft chases the taxis and BlahBlah chases the trains, or the other way around, depending on your loyalties.
Still, as the old adage goes, lots of people do have the same ideas around the same time. Winners are much more unique than that.
Big advances kill houses. That's the way it's been, and that's the way it's going to be. But in an increasing winner take-all, buyers won't care. They need the win and they'll lose their shirts trying to get it.
The success of The Windup Girl killed Night Shade Books, because it upped their advances in an attempt to replicate its success.
You can see the same thing happening with the studio summer blockbusters. Everyone appears to be voting to bet-it-all, with losses almost crushing the studios.
I'm not sure what the moral here is except, don't do it. Don't buy into it. Big bets don't make big wins. Wins make wins. And fate is fickle as to where they come from.
I and a lot of others have been talking about the dispute resolution processes and how they shift power to corporations over and above all sectors of government. In the domain name space they are called Rapid Dispute Resolution Processes (DRRPs) and around, in particular, intellectual property, they are fraught with danger. They allow corporations to overrule national laws around environment, climate, working conditions, you name it.
I hope we can slow this train down enough so that people can understand what is on the table here. At almost 6 thousand pages there are also a lot of devils in the details.
Politically, from my own personal experience, most infrastructure projects are sold to the public with a much lower price tag than what they know to be the actual costs, because people are incredibly price sensitive when approving important infrastructure projects.
What we need is a true accounting of the cost of things, and the political willingness to do them. This way we don't have to worry about politicians 'underbidding' their projects just to get enough popular support. It becomes a rigged game when that happens, where the public approves projects that everyone on the project side knows will costs several times that early estimate.
If we want the bridges and the tunnels and the shared transportation, sanitation, etc. We need to understand that these projects cost money, and we need to be able to have t true accounting of them, not one that is politically convenient.
Otherwise, we'll just have this, with 2x and 3x being common run ups, ad infinitum.
Good numbers, on all projects, would help us better allocate our future dollars. Big numbers shouldn't kill meaningful and worthwhile projects. Bad ideas should.