Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | jvm's comments login

And interestingly the capitalists in question appear to be homeowners:

http://www.newgeography.com/content/004888-pikettys-wealth-d...


The Travis Kalanick biopic:

"A bro stands athwart history, yelling cant stop wont stop."

https://twitter.com/Broethius/status/595971600358449152


Almost the exact opposite is true:

http://fee.org/freeman/detail/uber-against-racial-profiling

-----


> Brazil had the most overvalued currency in the world a year ago[1] according to the Big Mac Index, but today it's undervalued by 10.6%.

According to the adjusted index, it's still the world's most overvalued currency.

-----


My guess it that the word "slavery" usually implies chattel slavery, whereas these people were serving sentences of penal servitude.

Others have pointed this out, but penal servitude is alive and well in the US prison system as well [1] and it's not common to use the word slavery for that. Maybe they should, but it is arguably a different concept from chattel slavery.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_State...

-----


Hooray prison-industrial complex :(

-----


He's not counting inflation and 11.3% is a super optimistic expectation of future S&P500 returns. A more conservative estimate for real returns would be 6.5% [1] (and internationally returns to equities actually average lower). When I punch those numbers into a calculator [2] I get $65k which is ahem not as impressive.

[1] http://www.nickinrichland.com/starbucks-broke/

[2] http://www.moneychimp.com/calculator/compound_interest_calcu...

-----


By that calculator, $1300/year (52 weeks/year * 5 days/week * 1 coffee/day * $5/coffee) over 47 years (aged 18-65) assuming 6.5% gets you nearly $400,000...

($65,000 is definitely way off! 1.065^47=19, very roughly. So let's assume you just invest $1300/year for 3 years then go back to buying coffees. What's a ballpark figure for how much you'll have aged 65 after that? Figure very approximately $1300 * 3 * 19 = $74,100.)

-----


Agh you're so right! Sorry Sunday morning biff, I had $5/week not $25.

-----


Exactly. 11% returns is crazy high and a 44 year window is quite long. Under more realistic assumptions it's mid-5-figures.

-----


$5/day, $25/week, $100/mo, $1200/yr compounded over 47 years at 6.5% is $382,849.60. The interest rate may be exaggerated, but the benefits of saving are clear.

-----


> There is definitely a kind of person who's interested in the social aspect of ride-sharing. In fact, there's always been—the people who hitchhike and those wiling to pick them up.

My grandfather hitchhiked to school when he was young. He lived in rural Minnesota and that was the only way to get around, he didn't do it to be social.

Now that most people have other options, the only people still doing it are the people who want the social experience, and it's not many.

I'm not saying there is no potential social appeal to rideshare whatsoever, but like parent, I'm guessing it's slim.

-----


> the only people still doing it are the people > who want the social experience

Based on the people I see hitchhiking and the people I know who have, I have to believe that it's often (maybe usually) still motivated by means rather than a desire for a social experience.

-----


> the imperative to build more and faster come from

From a consequentialist/utilitarian perspective, you'd say that the utility benefit if you allowed a million more people to live in SF at affordable rents would outweigh by orders of magnitude the disutility of incumbents.

Another framing is just the attitude that it's wrong to exclude the poor from a community via high rents. I think people that focus on this framing are also relatively friendly to rent control, but building more housing is arguably more radically inclusive.

-----


Rent control prevents existing rent controlled properties from being redeveloped (e.g. to increase capacity).

Of course, in the SF context that might also be impossible due to zoning/nimby opposition, but it is one huge factor.

-----


The author declines to demonstrate to the reader that there are moral facts.

He attempted reductiones ad absurdum fall completely flat, e.g.,

> If it’s not true that it’s wrong to murder a cartoonist with whom one disagrees, then how can we be outraged?

...As if nobody has ever been outraged on the basis of their opinions!

He also fails to even mention what a moral fact would consist of. He doesn't say whether he agrees with this definition:

> Fact: Something that is true about a subject and can be tested or proven.

But clearly if one takes this position, there are no moral facts. What would constitute moral proof?

My guess is that the author is crypto-monotheist. With a God around, you could say that a moral claim is God's will, and even if we can't prove it there is a fact of the matter. In a godless world, there is no basis on which a moral claim could be a fact.

-----


> Fact: Something that is true about a subject and can be tested or proven.

That could be some positivist definition.

But in general a fact is something held or believed to be true, in that context it doesn't matter if it's self evident, deduced from other facts, known through experience, etc. Also that means some largely held facts can be just plain wrong.

-----


Lots of people have claimed ungodly sources of moral objectivity/universalism (usually nature, or reason, or some such).

-----


Okay but that's still, like, just their opinion man :-)

-----

More

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: