Maybe a couple can survive changes in the housing and job market well enough that it they don’t mind the changes to their quality of life. But it very likely will be noticeable to their kids when other families have stronger finances and better access to housing and job markets. If you can’t save more than the difference to such markets what you get for the money is de facto less. It is sort of inflation by inequality. Then the theory doesn’t really hold and the frugality has just been to try and keep up.
I am all for frugality but in many places it hasn’t worked out in the last 10 years because you haven’t had the same access to growth. Unless you already had assets in the first place.
I have found this to be distinctly not true. I don't know of many places were living a more modest life is a good choice. It seems like most people who says this have already benefited from cheaper education, real estate, their partner or career. In many countries average savings doesn't keep up with the increase in property values, especially not in attractive job markets. If you don't have wealth, or go into debt, you are falling behind. I really don't see it, maybe you have some example?
No amount of education is going to save you if the truth isn't viable. The truth isn't "climate change exists". The truth is "climate change exists and you are going to pay for it". And there isn't much of an alternative to that. I don't like populism either, but what alternative do you have? If the way to promise development is by cutting down the Amazon, that is what is going to happen unless there is a viable alternative.
Of course it is easier to change zoning or make reforms when you address people's concerns. Thinking that there can be development when everyone is either fearing having to move or have most of their assets in housing is what doesn't work.
I have had similar thoughts. There is a lot to say about the information age, but I have mostly changed my perspective. I don't think it is a technological revolution, or more correctly because of the technological revolution, these things are happening. We probably overestimate how fast things change, and overlay what is an economic revolution onto recent technological development.
Shenzhen is sort of a good example since isn't actually that high tech. There is for sure innovation but it is mostly existing, and sometime even old, technology. It is both culturally and matter of fact disconnected from the West. Much more so than other centers in the region. It is economic factors that make manufacturing there possible more so than technological ones. You might even argue that USSR were more cutting edge, but of course US companies manufacturing there would have been mostly unthinkable.
The power outside of centers mostly weren't taken away by technology, but by trade, mergers and mortgages. Of course technology has a role, but I am not so sure much of it couldn't have happened by fax. I really think the movie wallstreet is more of an answer to what is happening than the social network is.
As a Northern European it does seem a bit of a bad deal that women are expected to work but there isn't much of a guarantee for parental leave, affordable child care or even vacation. But I guess there isn't that much precedent for such things.
By definition you wouldn't know many lonely people. The chronically lonely ones are going to be the people who didn't end up getting married when they "should" have, couldn't make it into a proper career or fell out of one at some point. Most upper middle class people won't be lonely since if you can afford a career you can afford a social life or you might even be forced into one. But of course uncertainty and insecurity can make one feel lonely, so I guess that would count. Still that isn't going to be your epidemic. That is going to be those left behind.
You can find most information on seat61. Many countries just don't have very good infrastructure. It is often either slow in its own right or you have to transfer between trains, or even different operators. I think it is more of a "hard" than a "soft" problem.
You can, because you just have to make them fast enough to be competitive. Really fast train will probably never be widespread because they require to much infrastructure. A train going 5 times the speed of a car requires a lot of very expensive track per hour of travel. That is why the Chinese maglev only travels ~1 minute at top speed. But going 2 to 3 times the speed of a car is competitive as the tracks are cheaper and airplanes are expensive (both in cost and time) to stop. It all of course depends on local factors, but from 2 times the speed of a car trains start taking a lot of passengers from airplanes.
(There is also other benefits, like that trains don't generally go away. There are many places in Europe that are relatively hard or expensive to fly to).
It is a matter of perspective, but I think the more accurate view is that personal travel is what keeps the trains (or the planes) running and business travel makes the profit. You need the "bulk" for flexibility, frequency and maintenance. That is why there are plenty of low cost airlines, but almost no business class only ones.
Differential pricing in itself becomes problem when it comes to something were the value is partly external. Countries that want to maximize utility will have to reconcile with the idea that some of the value won't be captured by the train company. Most countries don't charge different rates for roads, but try to make the best roads and then collect taxes.
Doesn't seem fine to me. Denmark has some of the highest taxes on cars, high taxes in general, is overall expensive and increasingly has dysfunctional politics and uncompetitive infrastructure [0]. Part of the benefit of being a small country is that you can exercise a greater degree of control. With a suitably high tax rate you can lower the barrier to entry to increase participation and make the most out of your population. It if of course up to each country to select their model, but I don't see the endgame of Denmark not upgrading their infrastructure. That isn't something they can win at. Even the US arguably can't anymore.
Gothenburg to Stockholm is longer and takes 3 hours by train, and that is with a train from 1990. That is of course the prime route in Sweden, but it still isn't fast.
Unfortunately that is mostly the ocean. It takes around 3 hours to get through Denmark between Sweden and Germany. You could probably double that if you wanted to traverse Denmark. Three decades between the Øresund Bridge and the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link is a bit ridiculous to be honest. Maybe the countries can't support more, but I don't think one should expect to do well going that pace.
Buses could probably work in urban areas if there were less cars. Today cars come from far and wide "bunch up" in cities. Much of the reasons why trains are better in urban areas today is because of the dedicated space and being electric. But train don't get to really use their speed, easier environment or carrying capacity much in urban areas.
With less cars in cities buses could be competitive with trains since they are street level and can go in different directions, but the would probably still have to be electric and automated for that to be true. (Of course you would still need subways and commuter trains anyway, but you wouldn't be as dependent on them). Trams could probably also be an option, but I am not entirely sure on the future of self-driving trams.
> There is no unsolved technology problems with busses.
They have similar physics problems as cars.
1. They can't go very fast nor carry a lot of weight before they become uneconomical or unsafe.
2. They especially can't go very fast for very long if they are electrical.
3. They need a driver which makes them expensive to run often or with few passengers.
If you get to choose, what you want is something like:
A. Medium speed trains. Cheaper than high speed ones, but still twice as fast as cars with more comfort and less attention. But they need to have good infrastructure, so they can go that speed well and consistently.
B. Local buses with fixed routes.
C. Better golf carts for local transport.
Eventually you would automate all of them. Which would be relatively easy because the fast trains go on tracks, the buses go known routes and the cars, that are the most complex to automate, go slow. Slow also wouldn't affect for example automated deliveries, or repositioning, over longer distances.
Also even before automation as the cars would be "underbuilt", relative to today, they are cheap. So the don't get the sunk cost of a car. And since they don't go outside the local area, each municipality can choose their own infrastructure more freely.
Of course I don't see it happening as things are today, but this is in my opinion more inline with what should be discussed. Since things relative to physics isn't likely to change quickly.
It isn't particularly surprising that those with less money would limit their purchases at the corner store to non-essential items. That is usually how corner, or literally convenience, stores work.
Thiel gets way too much credit for being pragmatic (or whatever you want to call it). As far as I have read he has held those views for a long time, whether you like them or not. It wouldn't surprise me if it goes back to his parents or something. It seem mostly just that people don't want to believe that the US has opinionated "media moguls" like Europe.
There is a lot you can do, but you shouldn't have to. This isn't someone burning down their school. This is the first world becoming the third world in digital.
In the third world you always to watch yourself so you don't hurt, scammed or abused with little recourse. So being curious, doing something different or challenging the status quo becomes a liability. Eventually there isn't much development at all, only corruption and people knowing their place.
When you buy something in a store with cash in person, after having it shown by an employee, you can still in most cases return the thing at your will. But when some clicks a button moving a few bytes with a digital payment that in reality costs nothing, there is of course nothing that can be done. This industry is just increasingly rubbish.
Don't click this, don't open that e-mail and don't answer the phone. You don't know who it is from or who it is going to. Don't have that password, don't type it there, don't have it too long and don't make it too short. We can automate your job, but not authentication. Don't publish that, don't vote like this and don't live here. Know your place.
(At least my banks haven't offered virtual cards for many years).
I am all for frugality but in many places it hasn’t worked out in the last 10 years because you haven’t had the same access to growth. Unless you already had assets in the first place.