Bull**it Jobs

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's quite possible that the climate crisis actually drives us towards what I'm describing. An initial increase in scarce resources could change our collective mindset, leading us to aim towards a smarter society that creates abundance and slowly undoes the damage we've caused to the Earth. All of this is theoretically possible, but it requires mass buy in, which we are very far from at this point in time.

Also, 100 years is a pretty liberal projection. Hundreds of years is the more likely outcome, if it happens at all. 

Also probabaly requires massive and widespread tragedy, like 50% of the world population dying within a ten year period.  Otherwise no one will be motivated to do anything.

[felice]

10 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

The point of the theory is that we can eventually create universal abundance.

How do you create universal abundance of prime real estate?

[Rippounet]

3 hours ago, felice said:

How do you create universal abundance of prime real estate?

You seriously think that centuries from now humans will still be seeking "prime real estate" ?

[Heartofice]

5 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

You seriously think that centuries from now humans will still be seeking "prime real estate" ?

They will, and it will probably be on one of the colonies. 

[Rippounet]

10 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

They will, and it will probably be on one of the colonies. 

And of course, in the meantime, global warming will have been solved almost magically.

[Heartofice]

17 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

And of course, in the meantime, global warming will have been solved almost magically.

No, but it won't matter cos we'll all be living on Mars! Yay! 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Also probabaly requires massive and widespread tragedy, like 50% of the world population dying within a ten year period.  Otherwise no one will be motivated to do anything.

Sad, but possibly true.

5 hours ago, felice said:

How do you create universal abundance of prime real estate?

I don’t think there will be any. Most people will live in domes or in space.

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

And of course, in the meantime, global warming will have been solved almost magically.

No.

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

No, but it won't matter cos we'll all be living on Mars! Yay! 

We’re better off figuring out how to build Arks than terraforming Mars.  

[felice]

7 hours ago, Rippounet said:

You seriously think that centuries from now humans will still be seeking "prime real estate" ?

I think some places to live will always be more desirable than others. Even if we're all living in identical windowless units in domes or space stations (not what I'd call utopia!) some will be closer to communal facilities than others.

[Rippounet]

3 hours ago, felice said:

I think some places to live will always be more desirable than others.

I wonder whether centuries from now, the humans who will have survived the current crises will still be driven by such "material" desires. A concept like "prime real estate" could be rather alien to our descendants, not just because such materialism might be frowned upon, but because a different socio-economic structure could easily make it almost irrelevant. Assuming technology keeps improving, future cities could have near-limitless energy (by our standards) feeding star-trek-like replicators in every home and public transportation systems so advanced that "close" could be a very different notion. Even without standardized housing, one can doubt that in a society of abundance the differences between homes would be important enough as to create jealousy. In fact, isn't the very idea of "abundance" meant precisely to imply the disappearance of jealousy? "Abundance" is not actually an objective notion, instead it is a perspective that could easily be adopted in pretty much any version of an advanced human society.
OTOH if one doesn't believe that humans will evolve and move on to higher ideals (remaining as materialistic and jealous as they are today) then the question is moot since we can safely predict that, as in our day and age, a small minority of the privileged few will keep for itself whatever is scarce, even in a society in which abundance is otherwise the norm.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

Americans once worked 100 hours a week, six days in a row. Then, in 1940, came the five-day workweek.

Now labor unions are making the case for even less work: dropping days worked down to four.

That’s one of the changes unions are proposing as part of their vision for the future of work, which is outlined in a report to be released Friday by the AFL-CIO, the largest federation of labor unions in the US. (Disclosure: I am a member of the Writers Guild of America East, which is part of the AFL-CIO.) The report, which was shared in advance with Vox, focuses on finding ways to make sure workers can best benefit from automation and other technological changes.

As technology makes workers more productive, unions argue, why not give them three-day weekends? Not 40 hours compressed into four days. Labor unions are proposing a 32-hour workweek, with employees earning no less than they did before.

It may seem radical, a change that businesses would resist. But Richard Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO, assures me it’s not.

“We are very serious about this,” Trumka told me. “If we’re going to free up jobs for more people, then we have to go there.”

Trumka said some unions are already bargaining for shorter workweeks in the construction industry and health care sector but that it needs to happen nationwide. 

 

The case for a 4-day workweek
The future of work means fewer hours spent working.

https://www.vox.com/2019/9/13/20862246/future-of-work-4-day-workweek

[argonak]

On 9/13/2019 at 1:33 AM, felice said:

How do you create universal abundance of prime real estate?

Building taller structure with more dense housing in valuable areas.  Most of that would be happening naturally, but (at least in the US), people push regulations that actually make it harder for the market to properly adapt to circumstance.   Cities should be trying to be more like manhattan, instead they many are refusing to adapt and lead to ludicrous housing cost and insane commutes, like san francisco and seattle.  

Drive around those cities and ask why you don't see the large apartment buildings like NYC.  Its because the people living in the cities are refusing to allow it, even though its what would be best for the health of the city.

[Heartofice]

1 hour ago, argonak said:

Building taller structure with more dense housing in valuable areas.  Most of that would be happening naturally, but (at least in the US), people push regulations that actually make it harder for the market to properly adapt to circumstance.   Cities should be trying to be more like manhattan, instead they many are refusing to adapt and lead to ludicrous housing cost and insane commutes, like san francisco and seattle.  

Drive around those cities and ask why you don't see the large apartment buildings like NYC.  Its because the people living in the cities are refusing to allow it, even though its what would be best for the health of the city.

But large cities have some of the highest real estate prices on the planet. That doesn’t suggest abundance. London and New York are incredibly difficult to afford. This is due to a lot of reasons, such as density of opportunity and commerce.

You really cannot create infinite supply of housing because there is a obviously limited space on which to build. And demand will always be higher as everyone will always want bigger more luxurious homes ( not even taking into account the ‘doing better than the Joneses’ factor)

Building up doesn’t solve that problem.

Really the only way to create infinite abundance of housing is if we all live in a VR world and are jacked in via tiny pods. Until then ( and even then) people will always want more.

 

[Week]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Building up doesn’t solve that problem.

Yes, it does. Where does higher supply not lead to lower, or at least a ceiling, in prices? 

Enormous demand and building of superlux condos/apartments are going to keep prices from falling too far and introducing new enormously expensive real estate.

San Francisco rent would absolutely be lower if every apartment building was twice the height. This is basic shit.

[Heartofice]

19 minutes ago, Week said:

Yes, it does. Where does higher supply not lead to lower, or at least a ceiling, in prices? 

Enormous demand and building of superlux condos/apartments are going to keep prices from falling too far and introducing new enormously expensive real estate.

San Francisco rent would absolutely be lower if every apartment building was twice the height. This is basic shit.

My point was that building up won’t create infinite abundance of housing, there was always be disparity in housing prices.

Sure, of course creating a lot more housing will have effects on house prices, though these are also affected by plenty of other factors, artificial demand for instance 

[Week]

13 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

My point was that building up won’t create infinite abundance of housing, there was always be disparity in housing prices.

Sure, of course creating a lot more housing will have effects on house prices, though these are also affected by plenty of other factors, artificial demand for instance 

What's the point of your point? "We can build infinity" and "there are a lot of effects /shrug" are uhh ... duh and/or hello? Pretty obvious and inane wrt to the discussion.

[argonak]

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

But large cities have some of the highest real estate prices on the planet. That doesn’t suggest abundance. London and New York are incredibly difficult to afford. This is due to a lot of reasons, such as density of opportunity and commerce.

You really cannot create infinite supply of housing because there is a obviously limited space on which to build. And demand will always be higher as everyone will always want bigger more luxurious homes ( not even taking into account the ‘doing better than the Joneses’ factor)

Building up doesn’t solve that problem.

Really the only way to create infinite abundance of housing is if we all live in a VR world and are jacked in via tiny pods. Until then ( and even then) people will always want more.

 

The reason those cities have high buildings is because of the high land value.  Due to our poor urban zoning rules and such, it only ever makes sense to build tall when the land value gets extreme.  And there's obviously going to be points of diminishing returns, which is where NYC is now.  But you're still able to cram people at a much higher density in manhattan than you can in san francisco.  The problem in NYC is simply that despite how much housing they've built, still more people want there.

Most peopledon't want expensive luxirous homes.  Most people just want *A* home.  But developers want to SELL luxurious homes, because the margin is far higher on a 750k house on a 100k plot of land, than a 150k house on a 100k plot of land.  Market forces will eventually  get around that, because if you can sell 100 500k apartments on that 100k piece of land, that's even more profitable. 

But people being stupid people, decide that they dn't want to live next to a high rise and so they get their city to preserve their single home dwellings and block high rises.  Forcing everyone to commute and sprawl out.  

Dollar wise, across the country, generally its most cost efficient to build housing between 5 and 10 floors tall.  You get the most square footage with the least amount of decrease due to stuctural requirements for a tall building.

[Heartofice]

17 minutes ago, Week said:

What's the point of your point? "We can build infinity" and "there are a lot of effects /shrug" are uhh ... duh and/or hello? Pretty obvious and inane wrt to the discussion.

Someone stated that you can create universal abundance of prime real estate but by building up.  That’s not really the case

[felice]

1 hour ago, argonak said:

But people being stupid people, decide that they dn't want to live next to a high rise and so they get their city to preserve their single home dwellings and block high rises.  Forcing everyone to commute and sprawl out.

Selfish and inconvenient for everyone else, perhaps, but not stupid; it's a perfectly understandable preference.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Someone stated that you can create universal abundance of prime real estate but by building up.  That’s not really the case

By the time a society based around abundance could exist, yes, building up would be an obvious solution, as would say building underwater cities and living in space.

Seriously though, you are thinking too small. In a society based around abundance, the word "price" would be an antiquated concept. There would be various forms of social capital, but nobody would ever even consider how much it costs to live where they live, or pay for the food that they eat or the cost of going to the theater. All that would be gone, and people could live fulfilling lives doing as they pleased so long as it's within in the confines of society. You'd still have to work in some form, obviously, but it would look nothing like it does today. 

[TrueMetis]

I don't even really understand the issue, everyone wants waterfront property now, and not everyone can have it. People deal with it now, why wouldn't they deal with it in a post-scarcity future?