The way it gets to 4G cells right now - fiber. Maybe it makes sense to use fiber for the hub, and other technologies (including wireless) for the spokes? How many consumers want (or would utilize) gigabit fiber to the home? Stream a few 4K videos, watch some Facebook cat posts, post on Instagram - 100 Mbps down/10 Mbps up is plenty for that.
I travel a fair amount - about 80 days a year out of the country. I've lived (recently) in Belgium and China, and whilst I had more options for high speed Internet, it wasn't really appreciably cheaper than the 100 Mbps cable I get from Spectrum. About $40 in China, Brussels, or Ventura.
No, it's quite a bit more than that. It's a 220V, 50A (or higher) circuit. Talk to an electrician - it's going to run $500+, minimum. And that is if you have the service for it. You want a 20 kW charging system? Hope you have a 200A service - and that it's less than 50% used. Because 20 kW means 100A @ 220V. So you may have to double the panel (and mains) to your home. And everyone's home. For typically $5,000 or more. That's much more than just a socket.
Oh, and you and your neighbors need that too? Well, then the electrical to your small group of 10 homes, all running off of a 200 kVA distribution transformer? Yeah. not going to work. You now need to increase the size of the distribution transformers. Checked the price of for installation of a new 500 kVA distribution transformer? Whoops, there's another $3000 per person. Quite a bit more than "just a socket".
It's far from just a socket, it's an entire infrastructure once you move from "I'm the EV on the block" to "most cars on the block want EVs". And don't even think about parking structures at an office with a few thousand cars - now we need to pull in literally tens of MW of excess capacity - wiring, distribution transformers and more - so that each parking spot is now $10,000 or more.
Just adding a socket? Hardly. And $10,000+ buys a LOT of miles of gasoline for your typical hybrid...
Wages have increased historically, with a few brief periods else-wise. And CNC programmers do make more than machine operators, who make more than the guy bending sheetmetal to make the CNC machine. Increased productivity and value is typically paid more. You may not think it is paid enough, but facts say wages do increase.
The article also cites a Deloitte survey from 2017 that found 53% of companies had already started to use machines to perform tasks previously done by humans.
I'd say it's closer to 100%. Do you still have switchboard operators? Elevator operators? Calculators (it used to be a person, not an object)? No? Then you've already replaced humans with machines. Ever send an e-mail or fax? Then you've replaced the postman and the telegraph operator, too...
I live about 3 blocks from one... In the US the vast majority of roads are NOT major roads, they do not have stores and stations on them, unlike most of urban Europe. And I don't have to adjust my route based upon gas level, as there are literally over 160,000 gas stations in the US. There's one everywhere. Unlike charging stations (which do not exist at my office, and only at a couple places in my town).
So we just shift the cost of the brand new infrastructure to homes and businesses, then. Rather than utilizing the existing infrastructure that is geared around supporting vehicles (gas stations).
True. The summary stated as much, in terms of tangible results. You claim otherwise - where's your data, other than an assumption it would be better? Any facts you can point to?
That *IS* something
So now the concern is about feelings? Why don't you give every penny you make to others, that will make them feel better! Fabulous result, right?
All other things being equal, a happier person *WILL* be more productive than someone who is stressed out.
You keep stating this, but without any proof or substance. Just an assertion. Making it worthless.
The fact that there was no decrease in employment during this trial is almost certain evidence that if they had been looking for more indirect benefits they would have found it.
There was no increase in employment, either. Meaning people didn't change their behavior at all. That's the fact, if you'd actually get beyond just caring about feelings.
That's pretty misleading. They use it twice as often. It doesn't mean they're using twice as much. They also don't qualify for federal benefits until they're almost able to get citizenship, so it's not relevant to this discussion.
Undocumented immigrants may be eligible for a handful of benefits that are deemed necessary to protect life or guarantee safety in dire situations, such as emergency Medicaid, access to treatment in hospital emergency rooms, or access to healthcare and nutrition programs under the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).
You need to compare different states. CoL in Mississippi is a lot lower than California. Since we're talking about federal UBI, nothing prevents those who find it too difficult to live on $500 / mo. in San Francisco from moving to Jackson.
So then let's compare Helsinki and Los Angeles, the two largest cities. We find that Los Angeles is more expensive than Helsinki. Again, the facts are that if you do UBI in the US, you'll need to spend a lot more to have "parity" with this experiment. For the LA/Helsinki comparison, it would be about 35% more - so about $1000 per month to equalize the data.
We already spend on welfare at the state level. That spending can be used by each individual to supplement UBI from the federal level to reach a livable income. E.g. if states already provides $200 / month in food assistance, then the federal government only needs to spend $300 for a combined total of $500.
Except we need to spend quite a bit more than $500. But let's say it's just $500. And let's say that of the 217 million 18-to-65 adults in the US, only 180 million are citizens. So we need to provide $90 billion a month in UBI. Guaranteed spending. Over $1 trillion annually. That's the plan?
Remember, the Federal Government took in $1.4 trillion total in income taxes in 2018. So we'll need to up the tax rates by a solid 80% - meaning your Federal income tax load just about doubled. Ready for that?
Except your claim about more productivity wasn't seen. The report actually said nothing resulted either way. Other than an extra 560 Euros per month was spent per person.
UBI didn't do anything. That's the point. It was another cost, that didn't move the needle either way. Sure, people felt better about themselves - but there was no measurable impact based upon that. Other than an expenditure of 560 Euros per month per person, that is...
There are about 217 million people between the ages of 18 and 65 - UBI recipients.
We're not giving anything to illegal immigrants and visa holders. Maybe not even to permanent residents (though some might naturalize anyways to get the benefit, which is not a bad thing).
Not to mention you completely excluded state welfare spending, which if converted to UBI as well would significantly reduce the need to spend it at the federal level.
So we're going to spend more at the State levels? Or is UBI to replace all existing welfare plans?
Here's an idea - instead of first taking it from me (via taxes), and then giving it back (with the overhead associated), how about just cutting my taxes by the UBI amount? Let me keep it in the first place.
Costs. We spend about $600 billion a year on income security (welfare, unemployment insurance, etc) at the Federal level. There are about 217 million people between the ages of 18 and 65 - UBI recipients. Give each of them $630 per month (the equivalent to 560 Euros - as in this experiment), and we'd spend around $1.6 trillion - an increase of 173% in income security spending. We just added another $1 trillion to the national debt, every year.
Is making sure everyone feels good about themselves (with dubious benefits from that) worth blowing another $1 trillion annually in spending?
It's not mentioned anywhere; if there was an increase in productivity, wouldn't it be mentioned? Additionally we find from the study:
Long-term effects on labour supply cannot be inferred.
Though the experiment was intended to test short-term labour supply effects as compared to current welfare schemes, design issues led to unclear results. The zero difference between treatment and control group in employment tells us little about the relative effects from abolishing the welfare trap and eliminating conditions to access welfare The treatment and control group were also not sufficiently different, which might have biased results towards zero. Moreover, the fact the policy tested is not revenue-neutral,undermines its value as policy guidance.
There was no difference in employment at all; if you were more productive, you could increase your value of employment. But that wasn't found.
What was found, though, was it spent a lot more money to do UBI and unemployment, so it's net expense to be paid somehow...
Initial results of the two-year study had already shown that its 2,000 participants were no more and no less likely to work than their counterparts receiving traditional unemployment benefit.
The UBI did nothing to change the status of those receiving it, they just felt better about themselves. UBI didn't change the productivity output of the people at all, but they sure are happier!
Warm the past, and you have a ~1.5 deg C anomaly relative to the 1910 timeframe. Cool the present, and you have a ~0.1 deg C anomaly relative to the 1910 timeframe. Big difference.
One earner can also feed a family in the US. I know many people who do just that. They typically have one car and smaller homes as well. I assume it's because they don't chase all the consumerism of many others. They don't take big vacations overseas (usually driving places), don't have jet skis, timeshares, and boats. Don't have TVs in every room.
So he was wrong, "crime, illegitimacy, divorce, teenage suicide, drug use and fourteen other social indicators had become measurably worse since the 1960s"? The statistics show that? Or do you just think the conclusion he reached about the source of that change was wrong?
Cosko was interning for US Representative Sheila Jackson Lee at the time
Nope, nothing about Democrat in there! In fact, the only mention of political party is:
While watching the Supreme Court confirmation hearing in September, Cosko "became angry" at Republican senators questioning Kavanaugh
Was he upset because they were too harsh, because he was an uber-conservative?
The summary goes a LONG way to not mention Democrat (even though Cosko worked for two of them) and only mention Republican where it could be assumed they were the cause of all the issues...
The Heritage Foundation: keeping the world safe for entitled white christian males since 1973.
Wikipedia: Heritage also became involved in the culture wars of the 1990s with the publication of "The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators" by William Bennett. The Index documented how crime, illegitimacy, divorce, teenage suicide, drug use and fourteen other social indicators had become measurably worse since the 1960s."
Was Mr. Bennett wrong? Were those social indicators worse in the 1990s than in the 1960s? If so - then why do the facts hurt you so?
If you look at where the data was collected, there is precious little data in those prairies. Just 32 measurement locations for all of NWT and Nunavut. This is an area larger than the country of India, covered with just 32 thermometers, officially..
Slashdot Mirror
The way it gets to 4G cells right now - fiber. Maybe it makes sense to use fiber for the hub, and other technologies (including wireless) for the spokes? How many consumers want (or would utilize) gigabit fiber to the home? Stream a few 4K videos, watch some Facebook cat posts, post on Instagram - 100 Mbps down/10 Mbps up is plenty for that.
Much of what Jim Jefferies says would get him imprisoned or killed, in most of the rest of the world. Maybe having a bit of freedom is a good thing.
I travel a fair amount - about 80 days a year out of the country. I've lived (recently) in Belgium and China, and whilst I had more options for high speed Internet, it wasn't really appreciably cheaper than the 100 Mbps cable I get from Spectrum. About $40 in China, Brussels, or Ventura.
After all, when Mick Jagger needed heart surgery, he flew from the UK to NYC because of our 3rd world healthcare, right?
No, it's quite a bit more than that. It's a 220V, 50A (or higher) circuit. Talk to an electrician - it's going to run $500+, minimum. And that is if you have the service for it. You want a 20 kW charging system? Hope you have a 200A service - and that it's less than 50% used. Because 20 kW means 100A @ 220V. So you may have to double the panel (and mains) to your home. And everyone's home. For typically $5,000 or more. That's much more than just a socket.
Oh, and you and your neighbors need that too? Well, then the electrical to your small group of 10 homes, all running off of a 200 kVA distribution transformer? Yeah. not going to work. You now need to increase the size of the distribution transformers. Checked the price of for installation of a new 500 kVA distribution transformer? Whoops, there's another $3000 per person. Quite a bit more than "just a socket".
It's far from just a socket, it's an entire infrastructure once you move from "I'm the EV on the block" to "most cars on the block want EVs". And don't even think about parking structures at an office with a few thousand cars - now we need to pull in literally tens of MW of excess capacity - wiring, distribution transformers and more - so that each parking spot is now $10,000 or more.
Just adding a socket? Hardly. And $10,000+ buys a LOT of miles of gasoline for your typical hybrid...
Wages have increased historically, with a few brief periods else-wise. And CNC programmers do make more than machine operators, who make more than the guy bending sheetmetal to make the CNC machine. Increased productivity and value is typically paid more. You may not think it is paid enough, but facts say wages do increase.
The article also cites a Deloitte survey from 2017 that found 53% of companies had already started to use machines to perform tasks previously done by humans.
I'd say it's closer to 100%. Do you still have switchboard operators? Elevator operators? Calculators (it used to be a person, not an object)? No? Then you've already replaced humans with machines. Ever send an e-mail or fax? Then you've replaced the postman and the telegraph operator, too...
I live about 3 blocks from one... In the US the vast majority of roads are NOT major roads, they do not have stores and stations on them, unlike most of urban Europe. And I don't have to adjust my route based upon gas level, as there are literally over 160,000 gas stations in the US. There's one everywhere. Unlike charging stations (which do not exist at my office, and only at a couple places in my town).
So we just shift the cost of the brand new infrastructure to homes and businesses, then. Rather than utilizing the existing infrastructure that is geared around supporting vehicles (gas stations).
Not true.
True. The summary stated as much, in terms of tangible results. You claim otherwise - where's your data, other than an assumption it would be better? Any facts you can point to?
That *IS* something
So now the concern is about feelings? Why don't you give every penny you make to others, that will make them feel better! Fabulous result, right?
All other things being equal, a happier person *WILL* be more productive than someone who is stressed out.
You keep stating this, but without any proof or substance. Just an assertion. Making it worthless.
The fact that there was no decrease in employment during this trial is almost certain evidence that if they had been looking for more indirect benefits they would have found it.
There was no increase in employment, either. Meaning people didn't change their behavior at all. That's the fact, if you'd actually get beyond just caring about feelings.
That's pretty misleading. They use it twice as often. It doesn't mean they're using twice as much. They also don't qualify for federal benefits until they're almost able to get citizenship, so it's not relevant to this discussion.
False, they do get Federal benefits:
Undocumented immigrants may be eligible for a handful of benefits that are deemed necessary to protect life or guarantee safety in dire situations, such as emergency Medicaid, access to treatment in hospital emergency rooms, or access to healthcare and nutrition programs under the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).
You need to compare different states. CoL in Mississippi is a lot lower than California. Since we're talking about federal UBI, nothing prevents those who find it too difficult to live on $500 / mo. in San Francisco from moving to Jackson.
So then let's compare Helsinki and Los Angeles, the two largest cities. We find that Los Angeles is more expensive than Helsinki. Again, the facts are that if you do UBI in the US, you'll need to spend a lot more to have "parity" with this experiment. For the LA/Helsinki comparison, it would be about 35% more - so about $1000 per month to equalize the data.
We already spend on welfare at the state level. That spending can be used by each individual to supplement UBI from the federal level to reach a livable income. E.g. if states already provides $200 / month in food assistance, then the federal government only needs to spend $300 for a combined total of $500.
Except we need to spend quite a bit more than $500. But let's say it's just $500. And let's say that of the 217 million 18-to-65 adults in the US, only 180 million are citizens. So we need to provide $90 billion a month in UBI. Guaranteed spending. Over $1 trillion annually. That's the plan?
Remember, the Federal Government took in $1.4 trillion total in income taxes in 2018. So we'll need to up the tax rates by a solid 80% - meaning your Federal income tax load just about doubled. Ready for that?
Except your claim about more productivity wasn't seen. The report actually said nothing resulted either way. Other than an extra 560 Euros per month was spent per person.
UBI didn't do anything. That's the point. It was another cost, that didn't move the needle either way. Sure, people felt better about themselves - but there was no measurable impact based upon that. Other than an expenditure of 560 Euros per month per person, that is...
There are about 217 million people between the ages of 18 and 65 - UBI recipients.
We're not giving anything to illegal immigrants and visa holders. Maybe not even to permanent residents (though some might naturalize anyways to get the benefit, which is not a bad thing).
Actually, we do. In fact, immigrant households use nearly twice the benefits as citizens.
Cost of living is much higher in Finland than most of the US.
Actually, the costs are really quite similar.
Not to mention you completely excluded state welfare spending, which if converted to UBI as well would significantly reduce the need to spend it at the federal level.
So we're going to spend more at the State levels? Or is UBI to replace all existing welfare plans?
Here's an idea - instead of first taking it from me (via taxes), and then giving it back (with the overhead associated), how about just cutting my taxes by the UBI amount? Let me keep it in the first place.
Costs. We spend about $600 billion a year on income security (welfare, unemployment insurance, etc) at the Federal level. There are about 217 million people between the ages of 18 and 65 - UBI recipients. Give each of them $630 per month (the equivalent to 560 Euros - as in this experiment), and we'd spend around $1.6 trillion - an increase of 173% in income security spending. We just added another $1 trillion to the national debt, every year.
Is making sure everyone feels good about themselves (with dubious benefits from that) worth blowing another $1 trillion annually in spending?
Long-term effects on labour supply cannot be inferred. Though the experiment was intended to test short-term labour supply effects as compared to current welfare schemes, design issues led to unclear results. The zero difference between treatment and control group in employment tells us little about the relative effects from abolishing the welfare trap and eliminating conditions to access welfare The treatment and control group were also not sufficiently different, which might have biased results towards zero. Moreover, the fact the policy tested is not revenue-neutral,undermines its value as policy guidance.
There was no difference in employment at all; if you were more productive, you could increase your value of employment. But that wasn't found.
What was found, though, was it spent a lot more money to do UBI and unemployment, so it's net expense to be paid somehow...
My stress and worry increases as tax rates increase, but since I'm not getting UBI my happiness doesn't matter, does it?
Initial results of the two-year study had already shown that its 2,000 participants were no more and no less likely to work than their counterparts receiving traditional unemployment benefit.
The UBI did nothing to change the status of those receiving it, they just felt better about themselves. UBI didn't change the productivity output of the people at all, but they sure are happier!
Warm the past, and you have a ~1.5 deg C anomaly relative to the 1910 timeframe. Cool the present, and you have a ~0.1 deg C anomaly relative to the 1910 timeframe. Big difference.
One earner can also feed a family in the US. I know many people who do just that. They typically have one car and smaller homes as well. I assume it's because they don't chase all the consumerism of many others. They don't take big vacations overseas (usually driving places), don't have jet skis, timeshares, and boats. Don't have TVs in every room.
So he was wrong, "crime, illegitimacy, divorce, teenage suicide, drug use and fourteen other social indicators had become measurably worse since the 1960s"? The statistics show that? Or do you just think the conclusion he reached about the source of that change was wrong?
Cosko was interning for US Representative Sheila Jackson Lee at the time
Nope, nothing about Democrat in there! In fact, the only mention of political party is:
While watching the Supreme Court confirmation hearing in September, Cosko "became angry" at Republican senators questioning Kavanaugh
Was he upset because they were too harsh, because he was an uber-conservative?
The summary goes a LONG way to not mention Democrat (even though Cosko worked for two of them) and only mention Republican where it could be assumed they were the cause of all the issues...
The Heritage Foundation: keeping the world safe for entitled white christian males since 1973.
Wikipedia: Heritage also became involved in the culture wars of the 1990s with the publication of "The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators" by William Bennett. The Index documented how crime, illegitimacy, divorce, teenage suicide, drug use and fourteen other social indicators had become measurably worse since the 1960s."
Was Mr. Bennett wrong? Were those social indicators worse in the 1990s than in the 1960s? If so - then why do the facts hurt you so?
If you look at where the data was collected, there is precious little data in those prairies. Just 32 measurement locations for all of NWT and Nunavut. This is an area larger than the country of India, covered with just 32 thermometers, officially..