Brick laying and exoskeletons are probably not going to be big players. The best way of saving labor costs right now seems to be fabricating as many components in factories as possible. I expect you'll see a lot more prefab housing, prefab walls, prefab kitchens, prefab bathrooms, etc., with minimal amounts of work putting everything together at the building site.
There's no shortage of workers. There are lots of people around who'd be willing to do this work. It's a shortage of employers willing to pay the wage required to properly compensate people for doing the work.
The "employers" here are home builders. As a home builder, a house to me is worth about $150/sq foot, and that's how I'm going to price labor. If the price goes substantially beyond that, I'm not interested anymore, and I don't care whether you feel "properly compensated" or not.
at the same time usa is wasting lot more money and lives continuing unwinnable wars, causing huge destructions and deaths, creating ever more terrorists, directly in contradiction to wishes of american voters, who wanted less foreign entanglements and interventions, and wanted domestic development "first".
As far as I can tell, Trump and the Republican Congress haven't started any new wars, and Trump has been pushing pressure on Europeans to pay for their own defense. So, I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to.
but china is at least trying to build something, that at very least claims to benefit its citizens
We've been there and done that with the Robber Barons of the 19th century: politically connected wealthy people who use government-subsidized railroads and corruption to massively enrich themselves. Why do you want more of that?
Nearly 600 million people use this route each year, providing a reported $1 billion in profits
Well, that's the nice thing: government-run enterprises can "report" any profit they like, since they can provide vast amounts of hidden subsidies. For example, $1 billion probably doesn't even account for the rent the land would yield if it was put to other uses.
Teams aren't forced to hire him and likewise Google can freely fire James Damore. This is free business enterprise, capitalism.
Google does not operate in a free market: ISPs are highly regulated around the world, mobile operators are highly regulated around the world, regulations create high barriers to entry into Google's various markets, Google is part of several patent cartels, employers in California are highly regulated, Google is subject to enormous political and bureaucratic pressures, and conversely, Google lobbies extensively for favorable legislation. Google could fire Damore with impunity only because he is not a member of a protected class.
If you want to jump to a personal accusation from an objective argument, that shows bad adjudication where rather than hitting the points you attack the person, may you never occupy a management position as I do.
It's fascinating to hear about your management philosophy, please expound on it some more! And which part of Google do you work for?
Both hate towards subsets of society and anticommunism are, matter of fact, a part of the very definition of fascism.
Communists are totalitarian mass murderers. Any decent, moral, reasonable person should hate them.
Fascism literally means the "binding together" of the people; it is defined through total government control over the economy and the people. Fascism, socialism, and communism are nearly identical ideologies, except that fascism replaces class conflicts with national conflicts. Mussolini, in fact, started out as an ardent communist, but then discovered that class conflicts just didn't work well in the relatively wealthy West.
Zaphirplane, you need to read up on your history: the white supremacists, KKK, eugenicists, and fascist sympathizers in the US have overwhelmingly been Democrats and progressives. Fascists and anti-fascists, white supremacists and their violent opponents, they are all of the same shitty, racist, authoritarian mindset, and you're part of it.
BTW totalitarian, authoritarian dictatorship is your wet dream, where only the pure white get to run things and have a voice, the ones with a sister cousin wife enter the inner enclave of the pure pure white
You don't know what you're talking about. As a gay man and an immigrant, neo-Nazis hate me. But the American left hates everybody who doesn't kowtow to their totalitarian leaders. Really, there is little difference between the American left and the American right: you are cut from the same cloth.
I think you can break down the left vs right main views in its simplest concept idea. Right thinks you should provide your own safety net and be accountable for yourself, Left wants to make sure everyone has a safety net with government protections. You can see where capitalism and socialism fit in there.
That's a ridiculously ignorant and simplistic view of political divisions in the US. There are, in fact, at least half a dozen major political stances in the US, and they don't fall along a one dimensional axis.
nobody wants violent Antifa or Racists around
Seems to me that American progressives and Democrats strongly support racists.
Wait, I'm confused. Banning Nazi's is bad?? How did that happen?
The American Revolution and the Age of Enlightenment: we don't "ban people" anymore for their political beliefs, and we don't ban speech we don't like anymore either.
Not at all, free speech is about speaking your mind in criticing, exposing or offering an alternative.
If I say "cats are less intelligent than humans", does that mean I hate cats? Of course not.
It's never about free to spew hate towards a subset of society.
I hate corrupt politicians. I hate socialists. I hate communists. I hate fascists. I think I'm perfectly justified in "spewing hate" towards those "subsets of society".
That's the law, that's societies view
Hate speech is legal in the US. Furthermore, there is no such thing as "society's view". The majority may decide something, but the majority does not get to curtail freedom of speech.
Oh, and I also hate you: I think you are a totalitarian prick.
Private corporations can do whatever they want in terms of providing or not services to the general public.
Private corporations are constrained by a host of regulations in the US. Furthermore, given that Google has been lobbying to impose common carrier regulations on ISPs and Google itself functions in many ways like a common carrier, it seems reasonable to discuss whether we should extend those regulations to Google.
In order to be on the Play Store, social networking apps need to demonstrate a sufficient level of moderation, including for content that encourages violence and advocates hate against groups of people
I trust they are going to kill Twitter clients and web browsers on Android as well, then? Because both Twitter and the web are full of hate.
If Germany were a US state, it would be among the poorest, and its growth is anemic even according to its own questionable estimates. Mind you, that's with only a small percentage of Germany's total energy coming from renewable sources. And with all that, pollution in Germany is generally worse, not better, than in the US.
Any American politician that ran on "I'm going to adopt German economic and energy policies" is going to lose at the polls: Americans don't want to be that poor or that restricted.
They have a very clear moral argument that less pollution means better health for you and your children, why muddy the whole thing up with macroeconomics
That argument becomes much less clear when you realize that tripling or quadrupling the cost of energy takes our economy down to about the level of Kazakhstan, Chile, or Greece. That means almost no resources for advanced medical treatments, let alone research into future medical and technological breakthroughs. And that means much worse health for you and your children.
That's on top of a massive loss of living standards, but you clearly don't care about that.
makes $81,000 a year as a public health adviser for the United States Department of Health and Human Services in San Francisco
Move the HHS offices out of high priced San Francisco to, say, Stockton. But that's not going to happen because HHS, of course, doesn't serve the public, it serves the interests of the high level government employees that run it.
Also: this is a 3h commute for 80 miles, or an average of about 25mph: welcome to the world of public transit. The more cities try to push us into public transit, the more we all can look forward to these kinds of commutes.
Slashdot Mirror
In a lot of new construction, people use either precut composite panels (SIP) or prepoured concrete walls.
SIPs come in a wide variety of materials, including metal plastic composites.
Brick laying and exoskeletons are probably not going to be big players. The best way of saving labor costs right now seems to be fabricating as many components in factories as possible. I expect you'll see a lot more prefab housing, prefab walls, prefab kitchens, prefab bathrooms, etc., with minimal amounts of work putting everything together at the building site.
The "employers" here are home builders. As a home builder, a house to me is worth about $150/sq foot, and that's how I'm going to price labor. If the price goes substantially beyond that, I'm not interested anymore, and I don't care whether you feel "properly compensated" or not.
That's why we need to convince more women to go into it!
As far as I can tell, Trump and the Republican Congress haven't started any new wars, and Trump has been pushing pressure on Europeans to pay for their own defense. So, I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to.
We've been there and done that with the Robber Barons of the 19th century: politically connected wealthy people who use government-subsidized railroads and corruption to massively enrich themselves. Why do you want more of that?
Well, that's the nice thing: government-run enterprises can "report" any profit they like, since they can provide vast amounts of hidden subsidies. For example, $1 billion probably doesn't even account for the rent the land would yield if it was put to other uses.
Google does not operate in a free market: ISPs are highly regulated around the world, mobile operators are highly regulated around the world, regulations create high barriers to entry into Google's various markets, Google is part of several patent cartels, employers in California are highly regulated, Google is subject to enormous political and bureaucratic pressures, and conversely, Google lobbies extensively for favorable legislation. Google could fire Damore with impunity only because he is not a member of a protected class.
It's fascinating to hear about your management philosophy, please expound on it some more! And which part of Google do you work for?
Communists are totalitarian mass murderers. Any decent, moral, reasonable person should hate them.
Fascism literally means the "binding together" of the people; it is defined through total government control over the economy and the people. Fascism, socialism, and communism are nearly identical ideologies, except that fascism replaces class conflicts with national conflicts. Mussolini, in fact, started out as an ardent communist, but then discovered that class conflicts just didn't work well in the relatively wealthy West.
The smartphone market is, if anything, far more monopolized than the ISP market.
You are making ridiculous attempts to justify your political bigotry and biases.
Zaphirplane, you need to read up on your history: the white supremacists, KKK, eugenicists, and fascist sympathizers in the US have overwhelmingly been Democrats and progressives. Fascists and anti-fascists, white supremacists and their violent opponents, they are all of the same shitty, racist, authoritarian mindset, and you're part of it.
You don't know what you're talking about. As a gay man and an immigrant, neo-Nazis hate me. But the American left hates everybody who doesn't kowtow to their totalitarian leaders. Really, there is little difference between the American left and the American right: you are cut from the same cloth.
The arguments for enforcing content neutrality on Google Play are at least as strong as the arguments for imposing net neutrality on ISPs.
That's a ridiculously ignorant and simplistic view of political divisions in the US. There are, in fact, at least half a dozen major political stances in the US, and they don't fall along a one dimensional axis.
Seems to me that American progressives and Democrats strongly support racists.
If that were the case, then Google would need to ban socialists, communists, and progressives.
Yet, Che Guevara, Karl Marx, and Bernie Sanders aren't banned from Google Play.
No, you don't know what free speech means.
Which countries are you talking about? Authoritarian shitholes like European democracies?
The American Revolution and the Age of Enlightenment: we don't "ban people" anymore for their political beliefs, and we don't ban speech we don't like anymore either.
Well, but you should spend a little time reflecting on whether you are evil knowing it, or whether you are evil not knowing it.
Either way: go to hell.
If I say "cats are less intelligent than humans", does that mean I hate cats? Of course not.
I hate corrupt politicians. I hate socialists. I hate communists. I hate fascists. I think I'm perfectly justified in "spewing hate" towards those "subsets of society".
Hate speech is legal in the US. Furthermore, there is no such thing as "society's view". The majority may decide something, but the majority does not get to curtail freedom of speech.
Oh, and I also hate you: I think you are a totalitarian prick.
Private corporations are constrained by a host of regulations in the US. Furthermore, given that Google has been lobbying to impose common carrier regulations on ISPs and Google itself functions in many ways like a common carrier, it seems reasonable to discuss whether we should extend those regulations to Google.
Actually, in some states it is.
I trust they are going to kill Twitter clients and web browsers on Android as well, then? Because both Twitter and the web are full of hate.
If Germany were a US state, it would be among the poorest, and its growth is anemic even according to its own questionable estimates. Mind you, that's with only a small percentage of Germany's total energy coming from renewable sources. And with all that, pollution in Germany is generally worse, not better, than in the US.
Any American politician that ran on "I'm going to adopt German economic and energy policies" is going to lose at the polls: Americans don't want to be that poor or that restricted.
That argument becomes much less clear when you realize that tripling or quadrupling the cost of energy takes our economy down to about the level of Kazakhstan, Chile, or Greece. That means almost no resources for advanced medical treatments, let alone research into future medical and technological breakthroughs. And that means much worse health for you and your children.
That's on top of a massive loss of living standards, but you clearly don't care about that.
If you're going to account for costs like that, you also need to account for opportunity costs. How about it?
Well, that's the neo-Marxist believe, but they are just as wrong about that as about everything else.
Most people understand intuitively what science tells us: that morality and social relations are hardwired into humans. Well, except for psychopaths.
Move the HHS offices out of high priced San Francisco to, say, Stockton. But that's not going to happen because HHS, of course, doesn't serve the public, it serves the interests of the high level government employees that run it.
Also: this is a 3h commute for 80 miles, or an average of about 25mph: welcome to the world of public transit. The more cities try to push us into public transit, the more we all can look forward to these kinds of commutes.