What a lot of people don't get is 'the law' is a culmination of the decisions of an entire population. If 'the law' says taxis should cost x, then in one way or another all the citizens that are governed over had had a hand in making that decision. If you don't like it, you must have voted for the wrong person. Now with that said, I can understand how people are confused about this in this day and age. Also, I think this is the crux of the whole problem.... Governments have long stopped representing us so people are understandably forgetting the first part I wrote.
And what average wage do people make with Uber? I've heard in other threads if you want to make any money at all you have to go out when rates are high, thus losing flexibility on working hours and personal freedom.
The main issues I see with web applications are, dependency on the browser (which you say is completely avoidable, so fine I just haven't sen it), offline availability, lag time (java apps are usually bad for this as well), and security.. where is my data. These issues go far beyond 'doesn't use the win32 api'.
But that's the problem.. web clients can't be like native clients. With a native client you can do anything you want, all that matters is the control that is under the mouse when getting clicked. With a web client you need to operate within the confines of what HTML will allow. I know a lot of phone apps are web clients.. but there are so many apps that are crappy, webclient or not, it is hard to tell which are which. Usually with a web client at the very least there is some sort of lag or delay that is present that would not be there if it were native, and that is usually enough to turn me off.
Those things don't improve standard of living though. Living was just fine before celphones and flatscreen TVs. 'Having things' is not the same as living and do not contribute to quality time. Heck some of the best family time we have had has been over a board game. You know, the kind that doesn't even use electricity. Technology was supposed to give us additional leisure time, not less.
I don't think there will ever be a society where there is no need to work. I just think we have been shafted out of all the benefits that technology has brought us. To pull a number out of the air. if we are twice as efficient now we technically should have gone to a 4 hour day, perhaps we could have split the difference and gone to a 6 hour day, but for us to still be working full days is pretty ridiculous. Corporations were allowed to take all those gains straight to the bank.
I'm hoping there will never be a day when there will be no native clients to replace web clients. I have yet to see a web client that feels and behaves exactly like a native client.
One other thing to take into consideration.. Making each pair of pants more expensive may cause some companies to withdraw, sure, because they are accustomed to making $20 off of each $30 pair of pants and they may not be able to make the adjustment to making 1/3 that profit. So good riddance to them. It is important to understand that they are not withdrawing because it is impossible to make a business on that profit, they are leaving because they just want more and their shareholders demand more. In the mean time, maybe Joe the Plumber will realize that his life can be better. Now the playing field is more level for him to open a company making pants because while he never had the capital to open a factory in China, he can open a company in the US and he's happy with the profit he can make from his pants. There are just so many variables that your 1/3 cut across the board theory doesn't take into account.
Well all I'm saying is you need to check that math because you're making a lot of assumptions that aren't real. Selling 1/3 less products does not translate to 1/3 less staff, because there still needs to be a shop in every shopping mall in every city. There may be 10-20% less shops but not 1/3 the shops. Plus, added jobs as well to make up the difference.
Furthermore, you are also neglecting to consider all the jobs that this may create.. Suddenly tailors and seamstresses are important and relevant again, since it becomes worth the investment to fix or resize a pair of pants for $20 instead of throwing them out and buying another.
Oh there is no doubt it will change the balance of things. There is a lot wrong with your math. If us buying 2/3 less pants equals a 2/3 cut in employment down the board then that makes the pants cheaper in logistics on the American side and the only cost increase is the person who spent a couple hours making the pants in the first place. So this right away means that things will balance out at some point quite a bit higher then your doomsday forecast of 2/3 of the people selling those pants losing their jobs. If people bought 2/3 less pants, there will still be stores, we will still need transport, there will still be competition. The sky will not fall, people will just be paying more for pants.
No, the pants don't magically last longer. America is a very wasteful society, millions of people throw out pants because they are last years style and NOT because they developed a hole in the knee. Don't underestimate America's capacity to make things last longer, because if America has any untapped potential it is in being less wasteful.
Hard to make any judgments from those numbers. Are more people making higher than minimum wage. or are more people relying on welfare? It could have gone either way. There has been a massive increase in households receiving government payouts over the last while. It kind of makes sense, if minimum wage jobs are not enough to bring people out of dependency then people will become more dependent. Why bust your ass looking for a minimum wage job that will barely pay you enough to keep your family going when you can just apply for welfare instead? There are only two ways to go with this.. either reduce government handouts, which is going to have to happen anyway if the trend continues, or make it more profitable for people to come out of welfare.
Or pants cost three times as much and we must use them three times as long. How many Americans do you think there are that actually wear their clothes until they wear out? We don't need to buy as many clothes as we do, so that is a very easy sacrifice to make, especially if it is a choice between that or having a job at all.
I know. Basically it is clear to me that the middle class in the US is fighting an uphill battle and paying for increases in India, or wherever else global trade takes us. The population is bleeding in these nations, and so opening global trade has made us bleed as well while those at the top benefit from it.
Well, some people are afraid of our corporate overloads and fear what will come if they get all snotty about it. But I say, whatever is coming is coming anyway eventually.. so I agree with you, raising minimum wage is the way to go. I think the important thing is to make it easier for people to come off welfare, not harder. Sadly, we appear to be going the other way; to make welfare almost necessary for raising a family.
Not to mention, unpaid time spent networking that now falls on your shoulders because you are a consultant on a month to month term and not a salaried employee.
Slashdot Mirror
What a lot of people don't get is 'the law' is a culmination of the decisions of an entire population. If 'the law' says taxis should cost x, then in one way or another all the citizens that are governed over had had a hand in making that decision. If you don't like it, you must have voted for the wrong person. Now with that said, I can understand how people are confused about this in this day and age. Also, I think this is the crux of the whole problem.... Governments have long stopped representing us so people are understandably forgetting the first part I wrote.
And what average wage do people make with Uber? I've heard in other threads if you want to make any money at all you have to go out when rates are high, thus losing flexibility on working hours and personal freedom.
Very well said.
The main issues I see with web applications are, dependency on the browser (which you say is completely avoidable, so fine I just haven't sen it), offline availability, lag time (java apps are usually bad for this as well), and security.. where is my data. These issues go far beyond 'doesn't use the win32 api'.
... minus all the bitchy parts that people usually make jokes about.
We'll worry about that when there is a bona fide robot that feels and acts exactly like a women.
Cornflower blue.
I might consider an Apple car if it plays nicely with my Android phone.
How will I connect it to iTunes??
But that's the problem.. web clients can't be like native clients. With a native client you can do anything you want, all that matters is the control that is under the mouse when getting clicked. With a web client you need to operate within the confines of what HTML will allow. I know a lot of phone apps are web clients.. but there are so many apps that are crappy, webclient or not, it is hard to tell which are which. Usually with a web client at the very least there is some sort of lag or delay that is present that would not be there if it were native, and that is usually enough to turn me off.
Those things don't improve standard of living though. Living was just fine before celphones and flatscreen TVs. 'Having things' is not the same as living and do not contribute to quality time. Heck some of the best family time we have had has been over a board game. You know, the kind that doesn't even use electricity. Technology was supposed to give us additional leisure time, not less.
Why would I want that? I don't care if they buy iphones or not.
Not many, no. Maybe three. I find using a small touch screen difficult.
I don't think there will ever be a society where there is no need to work. I just think we have been shafted out of all the benefits that technology has brought us. To pull a number out of the air. if we are twice as efficient now we technically should have gone to a 4 hour day, perhaps we could have split the difference and gone to a 6 hour day, but for us to still be working full days is pretty ridiculous. Corporations were allowed to take all those gains straight to the bank.
I'm hoping there will never be a day when there will be no native clients to replace web clients. I have yet to see a web client that feels and behaves exactly like a native client.
One other thing to take into consideration.. Making each pair of pants more expensive may cause some companies to withdraw, sure, because they are accustomed to making $20 off of each $30 pair of pants and they may not be able to make the adjustment to making 1/3 that profit. So good riddance to them. It is important to understand that they are not withdrawing because it is impossible to make a business on that profit, they are leaving because they just want more and their shareholders demand more. In the mean time, maybe Joe the Plumber will realize that his life can be better. Now the playing field is more level for him to open a company making pants because while he never had the capital to open a factory in China, he can open a company in the US and he's happy with the profit he can make from his pants. There are just so many variables that your 1/3 cut across the board theory doesn't take into account.
Well all I'm saying is you need to check that math because you're making a lot of assumptions that aren't real. Selling 1/3 less products does not translate to 1/3 less staff, because there still needs to be a shop in every shopping mall in every city. There may be 10-20% less shops but not 1/3 the shops. Plus, added jobs as well to make up the difference.
Furthermore, you are also neglecting to consider all the jobs that this may create.. Suddenly tailors and seamstresses are important and relevant again, since it becomes worth the investment to fix or resize a pair of pants for $20 instead of throwing them out and buying another.
Oh there is no doubt it will change the balance of things. There is a lot wrong with your math. If us buying 2/3 less pants equals a 2/3 cut in employment down the board then that makes the pants cheaper in logistics on the American side and the only cost increase is the person who spent a couple hours making the pants in the first place. So this right away means that things will balance out at some point quite a bit higher then your doomsday forecast of 2/3 of the people selling those pants losing their jobs. If people bought 2/3 less pants, there will still be stores, we will still need transport, there will still be competition. The sky will not fall, people will just be paying more for pants.
No, the pants don't magically last longer. America is a very wasteful society, millions of people throw out pants because they are last years style and NOT because they developed a hole in the knee. Don't underestimate America's capacity to make things last longer, because if America has any untapped potential it is in being less wasteful.
Hard to make any judgments from those numbers. Are more people making higher than minimum wage. or are more people relying on welfare? It could have gone either way. There has been a massive increase in households receiving government payouts over the last while. It kind of makes sense, if minimum wage jobs are not enough to bring people out of dependency then people will become more dependent. Why bust your ass looking for a minimum wage job that will barely pay you enough to keep your family going when you can just apply for welfare instead? There are only two ways to go with this.. either reduce government handouts, which is going to have to happen anyway if the trend continues, or make it more profitable for people to come out of welfare.
Or pants cost three times as much and we must use them three times as long. How many Americans do you think there are that actually wear their clothes until they wear out? We don't need to buy as many clothes as we do, so that is a very easy sacrifice to make, especially if it is a choice between that or having a job at all.
I know. Basically it is clear to me that the middle class in the US is fighting an uphill battle and paying for increases in India, or wherever else global trade takes us. The population is bleeding in these nations, and so opening global trade has made us bleed as well while those at the top benefit from it.
Well, some people are afraid of our corporate overloads and fear what will come if they get all snotty about it. But I say, whatever is coming is coming anyway eventually.. so I agree with you, raising minimum wage is the way to go. I think the important thing is to make it easier for people to come off welfare, not harder. Sadly, we appear to be going the other way; to make welfare almost necessary for raising a family.
You think any of these businesses are barely scraping by just keeping up with running costs and salaries?
Not to mention, unpaid time spent networking that now falls on your shoulders because you are a consultant on a month to month term and not a salaried employee.