Reboots are inherently starting with a mortgage, a huge one: The movie they copy.
What gets rebooted? Box Ofice bombs? Or successful movies? Well, you don't reboot a bomb. Even though THAT would make a lot of sense, especially if it bombed because of execution and not the underlying plot and idea. That you'd start with a huge boon. But instead we reboot movies that people remember fondly and that creates expectations. Your movie has to be AWESOME to be tolerable at least. Because nothing less is expected. The movie you reboot was awesome. So this better be!
Yes, and this is true for sequels just as much, the franchise name will get people to the movies. Once. But if you take a look around the huge box office hits, you'll notice that most of their success relied on people going in twice, thrice, hell, ten times, just to see it again and again. Because, face it, even the best movie of all times will only attract a fraction of the potential audience. So relying on a name, duping people with it into watching it and disappointing them won't give you the next BO hit, it will give you a break-even result and burn the franchise in the process.
I have no belief. That's the first fallacy of the religious. To accept a scientific explanation, you need not believe. You need to understand. Which of course requires the ability to do so.
That's why religion is so popular. It's easy. Listen to someone say something and all you have to do is believe it. Science is harder to do. Believing it doesn't cut it. You have to understand what the person is saying, and to do that, you probably already have to have a lot a foundation knowledge so you have a chance to understand it.
That's because displaced workers eventually found new employment to move to. Eventually. It usually took a few decades and those decades were arguably the most horrible ones for the lower classes. That's what we so conveniently gloss over when we pride ourselves with a skyrocketing standard of living. Working conditions in early industrial times were horrible, you would not make slaves work in such an environment because slaves were an asset. You owned them. Workers were just rented, and if one should break, just throw him away and rent the next one.
We're getting there again. Actually, we're there already.
The problem this time is that low skill labour this time isn't going to get shifted somewhere else. At least there simply is no potential large scale employment field even on the horizon for them. When advances in agriculture technology led to fewer farmhands being required, people moved to the emerging industry towns and could find employment there (again, eventually). When automation of the conveyor belt jobs ended the mass employment of people in factories, the service sector was taking over.
Now this sector gets automated away. Where should the people go?
Even custom made clothing can be affordable. Yes, the coat will cost more than the 40 bucks that piece costs where two parts are sewn together, but unlike said bag it will actually fit.
I could well see that this may become the next low level status symbol, there's plenty of people capable of tailoring and able to actually form press and iron clothing parts into form fitting shapes, and it can be (and is) done for "normal" people.
And that's the fallacy: Fewer and fewer people are needed for the same production output. But producing != profit. Producing only generates cost. Only after selling a product you also generate revenue. Selling, though, requires three things: A potential customer to exist, said customer wanting your product and also being able to afford it.
The reason why our economy is in the dump is that we ignored the demand side of the equation fully. We produced like there's no tomorrow without considering that only after selling your product an actual revenue is generated. No matter how cheaply you produce. Whether you can sell your product at 200 or 100 bucks does not matter if your potential customer has 0.
Great. Then we'll have a population that can do what they have been trained to do, and only that, while at the same time believing the next bullshit peddler telling them Earth is flat, there's no viruses and invisible sky daddy built it all.
Because education that would allow them to know better and tell the lunatic to go away, pfft, who needs that?
What's a "household income"? Want to bet that the average $racial_slur family with 10 adult kids and 20 cousins living in the same household has a higher "household income" despite me working as security consultant and them picking apples?
In other words, can we get that statistic per capita?
And even if our want was unlimited, our funds are not. And no matter how much someone wants (or even needs) something, if he cannot afford it, no sale will happen.
If we want to fix our economy, we need more money on the demand side. The supply side is adequately funded. Actually, overfunded. Interest is bordering on becoming negative and STILL nobody can invest in something worthwhile.
Slashdot Mirror
Reboots are inherently starting with a mortgage, a huge one: The movie they copy.
What gets rebooted? Box Ofice bombs? Or successful movies? Well, you don't reboot a bomb. Even though THAT would make a lot of sense, especially if it bombed because of execution and not the underlying plot and idea. That you'd start with a huge boon. But instead we reboot movies that people remember fondly and that creates expectations. Your movie has to be AWESOME to be tolerable at least. Because nothing less is expected. The movie you reboot was awesome. So this better be!
Yes, and this is true for sequels just as much, the franchise name will get people to the movies. Once. But if you take a look around the huge box office hits, you'll notice that most of their success relied on people going in twice, thrice, hell, ten times, just to see it again and again. Because, face it, even the best movie of all times will only attract a fraction of the potential audience. So relying on a name, duping people with it into watching it and disappointing them won't give you the next BO hit, it will give you a break-even result and burn the franchise in the process.
They're not THAT much more expensive than a movie ticket and a box of popcorn.
So it carries a lot of dead weight, doesn't quite achieve the level required and doesn't deploy properly?
Yup, sounds like my experience with Indian work.
So you control a car? I assume it's supposed to be played with console controllers?
I have no belief. That's the first fallacy of the religious. To accept a scientific explanation, you need not believe. You need to understand. Which of course requires the ability to do so.
That's why religion is so popular. It's easy. Listen to someone say something and all you have to do is believe it. Science is harder to do. Believing it doesn't cut it. You have to understand what the person is saying, and to do that, you probably already have to have a lot a foundation knowledge so you have a chance to understand it.
That's because displaced workers eventually found new employment to move to. Eventually. It usually took a few decades and those decades were arguably the most horrible ones for the lower classes. That's what we so conveniently gloss over when we pride ourselves with a skyrocketing standard of living. Working conditions in early industrial times were horrible, you would not make slaves work in such an environment because slaves were an asset. You owned them. Workers were just rented, and if one should break, just throw him away and rent the next one.
We're getting there again. Actually, we're there already.
The problem this time is that low skill labour this time isn't going to get shifted somewhere else. At least there simply is no potential large scale employment field even on the horizon for them. When advances in agriculture technology led to fewer farmhands being required, people moved to the emerging industry towns and could find employment there (again, eventually). When automation of the conveyor belt jobs ended the mass employment of people in factories, the service sector was taking over.
Now this sector gets automated away. Where should the people go?
I think the current definition is "Anything that cannot be taxed".
Not yet, give it time.
Right wing blogs are just jealous 'cause Hollywood still has the better writers inventing more believable stories.
And that says more about the quality of right wing blog writers than Hollywood writers...
I hope so, I don't want a country full of robosexuals!
So those losing jobs to robots domestic will be able to afford hookers at their vacation destination again.
The system works!
And considering the sliding wages it can still be more expensive to operate than the 50 people with shovels.
The uncomfortable thing is that they refuse to cooperate for some odd reason.
Actually this isn't true.
Even custom made clothing can be affordable. Yes, the coat will cost more than the 40 bucks that piece costs where two parts are sewn together, but unlike said bag it will actually fit.
I could well see that this may become the next low level status symbol, there's plenty of people capable of tailoring and able to actually form press and iron clothing parts into form fitting shapes, and it can be (and is) done for "normal" people.
And that's the fallacy: Fewer and fewer people are needed for the same production output. But producing != profit. Producing only generates cost. Only after selling a product you also generate revenue. Selling, though, requires three things: A potential customer to exist, said customer wanting your product and also being able to afford it.
The reason why our economy is in the dump is that we ignored the demand side of the equation fully. We produced like there's no tomorrow without considering that only after selling your product an actual revenue is generated. No matter how cheaply you produce. Whether you can sell your product at 200 or 100 bucks does not matter if your potential customer has 0.
You cannot plan that, the production means are in private hands.
Well, technically, if it was just in the hands there wouldn't be so many babies...
Ok, who let the Commie in?
Or 10 large ones. Ok, it won't be at Starbucks, but...
And I'm sure you can find a legally resilient definition of "undue profit", right?
Erh... you know that the poor are more and that guns are cheap enough for them to afford them, right?
You might want to rethink that idea.
But since IQ is distributed, at least roughly, on a gauss bell curve, your example simply suffers from a small sample size.
Great. Then we'll have a population that can do what they have been trained to do, and only that, while at the same time believing the next bullshit peddler telling them Earth is flat, there's no viruses and invisible sky daddy built it all.
Because education that would allow them to know better and tell the lunatic to go away, pfft, who needs that?
I can only hope that one man with a digger is cheaper than 50 with shovels. I am not so sure that he really is in this time and age...
What's a "household income"? Want to bet that the average $racial_slur family with 10 adult kids and 20 cousins living in the same household has a higher "household income" despite me working as security consultant and them picking apples?
In other words, can we get that statistic per capita?
And even if our want was unlimited, our funds are not. And no matter how much someone wants (or even needs) something, if he cannot afford it, no sale will happen.
If we want to fix our economy, we need more money on the demand side. The supply side is adequately funded. Actually, overfunded. Interest is bordering on becoming negative and STILL nobody can invest in something worthwhile.