I’m not taking the flame bait. TFA is discussing the app economy for last mile delivery, a market which TFA admits was previously largely exploitative of illegal immigrant labor paid under the table and often abused in the process.
The is a prime example where the world has changed for the better through software. The job is now above board, tracked, and accounted in ways that make it better paying, more reliable and even safer work.
The competitiveness of the marketplace will only ensure these jobs become even better paying and safer over time.
Exceedingly low job switching costs is a massive contributor to the competitive forces which lead to these advances, which in fact serve to protect low skilled workers from otherwise abusive employers.
Every delivery app platform lives in absolute fear of all their contractors switching to the competition because they found a way to more efficiently schedule, queue, route, deliver, fulfill their customers and therefore can pay the couriers a higher rate or ensure them more profitable routes or a larger tip share.
Backlash was certainly loud, but Amazon could have made things work even without all of the subsidies they received. This is entirely me speculating, but I wonder if Amazon feared that NYC workers might eventually organize or be organized, given the political rhetoric and the framing of the backlash. Amazon has a legendary fear of unionization.
> Backlash was certainly loud, but Amazon could have made things work even without all of the subsidies they received. This is entirely me speculating, but I wonder if Amazon feared that NYC workers might eventually organize or be organized, given the political rhetoric and the framing of the backlash. Amazon has a legendary fear of unionization.
Aren't the workers primarily knowledge workers? In a place like New York where developer jobs grow out of the concrete I don't think there could be legitimate fear of unionization.
The distinction is that those types of areas in the US are generally unaffordable to many, and are probably far less safe due to increased car traffic.
> The fact is, over 60% of the 400 richest Americans were born wealthy.
Your propaganda piece does not state that. It quotes forbes stating that 70% of therichest 400 in the US made their entire fortunes from scratch, but then tries to put an ideological spin on the article by asserting that they were born "priviledged", without providing any definition.
Easy data mining: "Religious center" is a top-level category. "Religious school" is a type of "School". "Marijuana Dispensary" is a type of "Shop & Service". "Gay Bar" is a type of "Bar".
More evolved: Find location patterns that correlate with known gay or religious people (for instance by cross-referencing data sources).
He says he wants a new narrative, but makes no suggestion of how we can curb inequality other than the standard Valley tech-bro "government is hella inefficient" statement.
>, but makes no suggestion of how we can curb inequality
Fred's version of "curb inequality" is different than yours.
He's saying there's moral vs immoral inequality:
- immoral inequality: billionaires exist while poor people don't have basic needs met
- moral inequality: billionaires are ok if the poorest people have adequate healthcare, education, and some UBI
His blog post is about moving the narrative towards the 2nd scenario of inequality. One can also disagree with Fred's 2nd scenario. I'm just pointing out the nuance in his essay.
I am tired of this shtick where when companies fail, it is a beauty of free market at work, but when government projects do, it is because government is inefficient and same people who keep expounding how you have to put money into all sorts of ridiculous ideas because you can't tell which one will work, turn around, lose all humility and just know how they could do better governing.
When government projects fail everyone involved walks away with money, not so when it comes to private sector projects. In fact take a look at some of the big consulting firms like IBM, they get paid more when governmental projects fail because they are paid first to implement them and second to fix the implementation they failed at delivering in the first place. The politicians who voted for the project are generally reelected and the cycle continues into the next major project.
When companies fail (because they're providing a service that not enough people want, or because they provide it too inefficiently), those companies stop using resources, which frees up those resource so that someone else can use them (presumably more efficiently, or to provide something that more people actually want/need).
But when government projects start to fail, the first thing that usually happens is that they get considerably more money to try to make it work, and that goes on for years. And when government programs don't work, or don't do something that enough people need or want, those programs far too often just keep going, for years and even decades, wasting resources that could better be used for something else.
The main difference is that companies fail with their own cash (or that of private investors) and everyone who loses money in the process had contributed that money voluntarily.
When government fails, it’s with the money of taxpayers who had no choice of not contributing and who might in fact have been heavily opposed to the failed project.
The most hilarious part of the narrative is that, when talking about the US federal government at least, a huge chunk of its inefficiency is right near the top of its spending.
Social security isn't waste. Its money that goes from taxes to people who then spend it. Its wealth redistribution, but for some stupid reason its from current workers to past workers than from the rich to the poor. But that money is by and large functioning as direct stimulus in myriad ways - most retirees spend their social security checks on goods and services essential to their life, they don't really try to save or reinvest the money that much, it provides a very consistent demand base and revenue stream to build a business for, and it alleviates pressure on the children of retirees to not have to care for them - or for much more expensive welfare programs to take care of them when destitute.
Theres probably some really nihilistic misanthropic argument that medicare is a waste, since the recipients are unlikely to make much further substantial economic contribution, but don't go arguing that you should be left to die just because you turned 70 and probably won't be "worth much" anymore.
Medicaid however absolutely isn't wasteful. Giving those without the means to afford healthcare access to it dramatically improves their ability to be productive and saves hospitals substantial amounts of money not having to provide live saving treatment for someone who couldn't afford to come until they were actually dying. It keeps people from becoming money drains on the economy by curing their ailments before they become debilitating.
But after that... its military spending. With 2.1 million active personnel and a budget of 590 billion the government is paying $280,000 per service member. The military does produce some research, and the US has some influx economic benefit from being the "world police" and largest military on the planet, but almost certainly not enough to offset the amount of money going into what is effectively a public jobs program that doesn't produce almost anything of value to anyone directly. The military does "employ" more than just its enlisted by keeping dozens of weapons contractors in business but they are then just companies manufacturing arms and weapons of war that cannot make anyones life any better. Its all a total and complete waste of money.
But of course the GOP platform is always cut everything else and spend more on the military, despite it being the most blatantly wasteful use of federal money, because its "their" jobs program, not the "others" jobs program. Spending money on the military is just a way to win elections for most rather than anything to consider a moralistic evil for wasting so much - money, lives, time, effort - on. It seems the conservative take away from the New Deal was that the guy giving someone money to dig ditches and fill them in is probably going to get the ditch diggers vote.
> the standard Valley tech-bro "government is hella inefficient"
this is not a Valley standard. this is a consistent viewpoint held for many decades by a variety of thinkers. your comment appears to just be shitting on it, instead of offering any challenge to it's accuracy.
I think OP was probably referring to the 'dead Main Streets' and 'neighborhood near the plant that closed is totally struggling' phenomenon. I've been around the same areas and see seriously struggling places. When I was growing up, the Main Street was a little better but still bad, but the new strip mall stores/outlets/Walmart out by the highway were doing great. Now, the stores around the Walmart aren't even alive.
