edblarney

It's not flammable. And properly processed, even a leakage in the containment wouldn't necessarily be disastrous, i.e. requires cleanup, but no like chernobyl problems.

I wish we would put more research into this.

Imagine if we could make nuclear waste relatively benign? It would revolutionize the entire world.

" I still wouldn't work for 16 bucks an hour in the hot sun around dangerous chemicals with no benefits in the middle of nowhere."

You wouldn't work for what is about 20% above the national wage, to feed yourself, put a roof over your head?

If most people share your sentiment - then America is finished. You're done. It's over. I hope that's not the case.

There is absolutely nothing unpleasant about working in food services.

What makes it 'unpleasant' is the destruction of the social contract that valued 'regular work', and the fulfillment of specific jobs by illegal migrants which creates a negative 'social class signalling' dynamic to the work.

It's socially destructive, and irreversible - and I believe it adds considerably to inequality.

"You can't keep paying people more to solve the problem, it doesn't work. No one aspires to earn 30k a year anyway"

No!

The average income for the USA in 2008 was $28K!

That's the average - meaning that for every person earning $75K (not that much) there are a dozen people earning $20K.

90% of people don't work as an 'aspiration'. The don't have 'careers' they have 'jobs'. And 90% of jobs in this world are not very exciting. Stocking shelves, pushing paper etc..

It's crazy to suggest that 'almost all of our jobs are crap and boring and nobody wants to do them but desperate illegal migrants who'll work for crap pay'.

If you pay reasonable wages, people will do regular jobs - that's how almost the entire world works.

If there as no negative social stigma doing things like 'stocking shelves' - and BTW it's a very new phenom - then things would work just fine.

"It wasn't as cool to work at fast food, and the area was becoming more affluent."

If you walk into a 7-11 in Scandinavia (yes, they have some there) - esp. in a small town - you'll sometimes see a drop-dead '10' Swedish model working behind the counter.

Why? Because 'it's normal' for people to do such jobs - as you say - 'when you were young' it was normal.

When those jobs are done by non-citizens, especially of a different ethnicity, then there is a 'stigma' associated with that work, and the social value drops quite a lot.

The notion that 'the area became more affluent' and kids wouldn't do those jobs is a total misrepresentation of reality.

A) If the social context didn't change, then kids would do those jobs.

B) 'They had to hire illegal migrants' is again another lie. As the area becomes more wealthy - guess what - wages are supposed to rise. Yes, that means the price of burgers should rise a little bit as well. But it's again, a total misrepresentation, borderline lie to imply that the 'only way to have service workers is to hire illegal workers'. This is beyond false.

The anecdote you described provides the fundamental basis for the rise of inequality in America.

The notion that 'illegal workers' must be used to support economic activity is obviously unfeasible in the long-term, that somehow growth depends on a class of workers who'll work below the real prevailing wage - and who cannot organize, collect social security, healthcare etc.

No - it's completely upside down.

There are so many places in the world where 'regular kids' continue to work at McDonald's. Wages and benefits are higher, and there is no real social stigma. (Of course, working at McD's is never going to be considered a choice job, but you did it :) )

"I do think something is missing though when kids don't learn what it's like to hold a retail type job dealing with the public."

Yes - I fully agree. Been there.

But a bifurcated society creates stigma and deep 'social class signalling' in these jobs and it destroys the social compact.

Imagine this for a moment: that Obama or Trump gives all illegal migrants instant citizenship with full rights, healthcare, the right to organize labour, social security.

Then guess what happens by the 'illegals are necessary economic logic': McDonald's has to 'fire the new citizens' and 'hire actual, new illegals'!

It's a destructive, unsustainable Ponzi scheme.

Local wages should rise until the jobs are filled.

Some farming jobs just won't work out - those crops can be grown elsewhere.

Yes - we need to treat people with humanity and dignity and there'll always be some people who 'fall through the cracks' - but the systematic importation of illegal workers on a large scale is inhuman.

"There's no room to grow."

"Productivity, respect and growth are. Are we having any all across post-development countries?"

Have any of you ever taken a basic Econ course?

'No room for growth'?

THE ECONOMY HAS BEEN GROWING EVERY YEAR.

Do you realize that 'feature phones' to 'cell phones' is economic growth?

Do you realize that '2G to 4G' is economic growth?

Do you realize that more people going to college than ever before is good?

There are new medicine trials every day - gene therapy. Jesus H Christ you can now chose the gender and eye colour of your offspring. That's how advanced we are.

100 years ago - there was no 'medicine'. 95% of all operations were basically amputations with crossed fingers of no infection.

Do you realize that the amount of air travel in the world has doubled in the last little while?

That you have access to 100000x more information that people just 20 years ago, before the internet?

You do realize that the iPhone/Android/Facebook are only 10 years old?

That 20 years ago there was no YCombinator?

I'm just going to assume that most of you are too young to have any perspective, because I just can't understand the commentary here.

When you hit your 30's, you can look back and your own life can be a literal testament to the change.

Yes, some things stay the same, but at least in terms of material productivity, things are better.

"The boomer's coasted on the tail end of a rising post-war economy and government largesse, then burned the ladder behind them and destroyed their legacy by electing Reagan. "

Utter bullshit.

It's not even anectodal - it's just complete narrative fiction.

This is HN, try some facts.

Which material or social elements regarding standard of living between the generations, implies that 'Millenials have it harder'?

By every external measure, you have more wealth and opportunity than any generation in history.

"This disgusting rightward lurch sets the stage for a CIA scion to pretend he was a cowboy "

What the smack are you on about?

This is HN not the Huffington Post.

"Ended the Cold War? Look at 2017 and think about that one."

If you were alive during the cold war, then you know that 2017 is obviously not the cold war.

Stop complaining.

"It is so perfectly stereotypical and dicorced from reality "

It is exactly reality - and that you don't grasp it only validates how utterly self-deluded Millenials are.

By every measure Millenials are doing better.

Millenials have:

+ Better healthcare, more coverage + Better access to education, information, more college grads than ever + More job opportunities, more diverse fields to apply knowlege + More opportunity for wealth creation + A life full of gadgets, toys and trifles that couldn't even be imagined + You have 'fast fashion' - just 20 years ago there was no suh thing. Clothes were expensive. + Your cars are pretty good, stereos are great, they are fun to drive. Drive a car from the 1970's - they are shit-boxes + You have access to unlimited entertainment and music. In the 1970s' you had 10 records. You wanted to listen to more you went to your friends house. + You have more mobility and access to jobs not only around America, but around the world. + Millenial girls can actually have careers and jobs - and not have to fight vicious stereotyping.

It's basically disgusting that this generation should make existential complains.

What are your beefs?

That you don't bet to be CEO after 1 year?

That you can't live in a baller apartment in SF and have to actually commute from the burbs?

That you don't have job security? Well, you could, if you wanted a more boring job.

That you have school debt? Every generation did. You could have gone to a state school, private school is a luxury.

All of these gripes are really sad 'Oh the Boomers fed everything up' and 'life sucks'. Bullshit.

Provide some facts.

Other than University being a little more expensive - I don't see anything that is remotely more difficult. And FYU with interest rates so low compared to the 15% it was in the 1980s, I say in real dollars, maybe that's not so bad.

"It doesn't matter how cheap the land/housing is if you can't get a job while living on it."

B.S.

Unemployment in the US is relatively low even on a long term basis.

The average home prices in the US is $188K. Most people can afford that.

There is more opportunity for mortgages and financial services than at any time in history.

There is more opportunity for mobility than at any time in history.

You have it easier than any generation in history - but all you can do is complain.

If you want to 'have it like the boomers did growing up' - well, you can skip going to college because few of them did - and you can do some crap job pushing paper for most of your life, in boring but steady employment, and buy a small, mediocre home in the burbs and mow your lawn. That was the 'steady, sable American dream'. You have opportunities that they never had - and that most kids in the world would kill for.

Utter and complete rubbish.

The 'boomers' invented most of the 'computer stuff' you use, most 'developers' today are hacks (granted, some are amazing).

Boomers had difficult upbringing, brought real social change, lived through - and ended the Cold War.

Female boomers were expected to be secretaries - and had to fight for the right just to do normal jobs in the workplace.

Even the boys - were expected to do the same jobs their fathers did, mostly boring labour - and only a fraction of them got to go to University.

There was no such thing as 'startups' back in the day - there were zero opportunities for middle class young people to generate wealth or do globally impactful things.

They lived during the draft, and 50 000 of them died in Vietnam.

Millenials are born into massive entitlement, wealth , privilege and opportunity.

You get bored easily, and don't want to do the same job for more than a year - but expect loyalty and long term employment? Yes - boomers had steadier work - but it was also incredibly boring, stagnant - and in real wages, pay was crap.

Boomers could own a small, shoddy home in the suburbs, and were able to have 'a fridge' and 'an oven' and 'a car' - even though they were all crap by today's standards - that was 'The American Dream' and they were generally happy.

If you are born past the fall of the Berlin wall in America - unless you are from a ghetto - you do not know hardship.

As for real estate: the average home price in the US is about $200K. You can afford a home. You just can't be 'Instagram baller'.

As for 'higher positions' - do you think the 'Greatest Generation' just handed over their choice positions to the 'Boomers'? Or do you think it took mostly a lifetime of work and loyalty? If you don't like your job make yourself CEO of your own company. What's stopping you?

American Millenials have more opportunity than any group of people in the entirety of history - enough with your complaining.

There's nothing wrong with white-boards, it's how they are used that matters.

No, not at all.

Facebook is a de-facto standard of communication. They have your info, you friends info - and you need FB to find and share with others.

The technology medium is completely irrelevant.

It's like saying 'hospitals are not important for saving lies, what matters the most are 'roads' because that's how sick people get around'.

My Space was never a communication mechanism, it was almost purely social, moreover, it didn't have broad appeal. My mother and grandmother never used MySpace - but they use Facebook.

Facebook has cross generational and cross cultural appeal, and has a 'global critical mass' making it the default platform for a lot of human communication.

I don't like Facebook at all, but they are here to stay for a while, until something else replaces it.

In economics, there are just to many variables to satisfy - and of course, the impossible variable which is the nuance and choices that humans make.

That doesn't make it unworthy, it just means we have to understand what we measure and why, and the limitations of it.

If you pay your mother to babysit, that goes into the GDP. If she does it for free, like most families - it doesn't go onto the GDP - yet the same amount of value was created.

The GDP also does not measure consumer surpluses, which is crazy.

It also doesn't account for the degradation of so many things. Clean water for example. A lake is polluted - unless someone is hit, economically speaking, it doesn't factor into the GDP. Well, we clearly 'value' clean water and streams on some level, maybe we should have a 'balance sheet' of 'natural assets' and put a number on them.

People tend to move around measurable things, and putting numbers on things changes hearts and minds.

Example: insurance companies are starting to change more for certain elements of climate risk. Maybe not quite 'climate change' in the grand sense, but certainly local climate issues. Then business have to respond because costs go up. I find a lot of business people are like that - once it's in numbers, measures, costs, it's easier to get on board.

If there's a real macro problem with economics, is that we need to measure something better than the GDP :)

Also, because of comparative value, it's hard to be objective with the GDP.

+ I think the author would put socialism square in his view of 'Eurocentric Modernism' as well.

+ Trump is the farthest thing from a neoliberal. He's a nationalist/protectionist, anti free trade.

I reject a lot of the author's claims about Adam Smith and 'narrow self interest'. Generally, people are concerned about their own well-being more than others, that's just a fact, it doesn't make us greedy. Knowing this, we can model human behaviour and markets etc. with some degree of rationality.

Adam Smith believed the #1 attribute of a CEO was 'benevolence' for gosh sakes :).

So much hardcore capitalist stuff is attributed to Smith, when really he was not. He was explaining how things work, not an ideologue.

I don't think facebook is a fad.

It's the default communication mechanism for many people.

Telephones stink and we still use them because they are a standard.

So much complexity to put some pictures on a screen and have people click 'like'.

It's dizzying.

I wonder if build-system complexity is an artifact of reducible complexity in other areas.

Perhaps the next time we develop a language, it should comprise of it's own build system that doesn't require any configuration, or rather minimal. To the point wherein we didn't need to think that much beyond the obvious.

Well, Eastern European countries are growing much more rapidly than the others.

But they are definitely different - they were closed economies, way behind, and there's advantages to their having the Euro (should they get it). Which is different from Greece/Spain.

Moreover, they want to be in the Euro :) the Swedes, Danes, English etc. chose to not use it.

"Combating xenophobia should be a moral issue, not a utilitarian one."

Equating 'pro immigration' with 'morality' is the rather problematic basis of your statement.

Many countries (most, in fact) do just fine without large scale immigration policies.

Many nations with immigration are struggling to cope.

Moreover, there are serious flaws with US immigration policy such that one could be opposed to it on that basis.

Very, very few people 'hate immigrants'. But significant numbers of people think it's inappropriate to have people sneaking across the border, without documentation or status, and others just don't support large scale immigration, or perhaps have other criteria.

"Apart from the idea of sorting people into useful and useless being inhumane, it also seems to be counterproductive."

I'm sorry but this is totally unfair.

Nearly every nation has immigration criteria.

Canada, Australia and UK (non-EU) all have a 'points system' which definitely separates 'the useful' form the 'useless'.

Education, skill-set are key components.

I would argue language ability should be added to the list as it's the #1 predictor of integration. It's impossible to engage with a community that one cannot communicate with - and this will help a lot with those immigrants who are likely to be most marginalized (i.e. not the rich one's we are worried about). Language training should be a primary part of social support for newcomers.

"It looks like every kind of screening of immigrants will deter the more desirable ones"

No, this is not true at all. The most talented immigrants are entirely undeterred. The nations noted above are good examples of that.

"as far as that determination is possible on their arrival at all."

There is no 'determination' at arrival. The discriminating criteria are usually applied before immigrants arrive.

This doesn't preclude status for refugees and other family-class migrants either - you can have both.

Finally - I think looking at success rates of immigrants overall is a much better exercise than looking at a handful of billionaires, though the later does have value.

The political ramifications are identical - it's not a technical issue.

Spain is desperately afraid of Catalonia departing - and the nuance of 'we left the EU before we joined' won't matter to the voters. Scottish separation and ascension to the EU would carve a crystal clear path for Catalonian separatists, and give massive wind to their sales.

To the above commenters point - no gov will likely ever come out and say it, but there's no reason for Spain to support Scottish ascension, and every reason to be against it.

" If we are to learn the lessons of the Brexit referendum, you need consensus to enact any major change to people's citizenship rights. Consensus there is not."

UK citizens were never given a vote on their 'citizenship' rights in the EU.

UK citizens only voted to join the EEC - not the EU. They voted to join what was essentially a 'trade block'. Not a supra-federal state. (UK citizens were not given a vote on the treaty of Rome.)

The French voted against the treaty of Rome - and guess what? Their Parliament enacted it! How's that for consensus?

Same thing in the Netherlands.

In Ireland, they were forced to 'keep voting until it passed'.

Most other countries did not get a referendum on joining the EU.

There was never any 'popular consensus' on the EU as we know it - it likely may never have existed if it were put to referendum.

I would argue that a 'strong consensus' would be needed to have Scottish, Catalonian or Quebec separation - those are parts of nations.

The EU is not quite the same thing.

The people voted, not Cameron.

One could argue that the root political problem is the EU itself.

Nationalist movements are on the rise across Europe: The Dutch are about to give their top choice a pretty hard core 'anti Muslim' guy. The French will have a runoff between Le Pen and probably Macron. The Sweden Democrats are polling at 22%. True Finns have incredible influence. Austrian nationalists lost the presidency by a tiny margin. Brexit. Poland. Danish nationalists form government. Admittedly, Catalonia and Scotland are a different strain.

And a massive division between periphery, core and Eastern Europe on 'existential' issues.

For most of these issue, failure of EU leadership, and hostility and intransigence towards the will of the plebes led to this. It could have been avoided.

'For or Against' - the EU as we know it is dead - it didn't want to adapt - so Europe is adapting underneath it.

I don't think it will break up, but nothing will ever be the same in EU-land.

Sweden chose not to join the Euro.

Oddly - European nations that don't use the Euro are generally much better off: Norway (though not EU), Denmark, Sweden, UK.

In hindsight, the UK's decision to not join the Euro is widely accepted as smart.

The Euro is effectively a 'hard Germany currency' that has entrapped the periphery of Europe into a monetary system that massively favours the Germans. Maybe it could have worked out - but from 2000-ish to 2008 - world bankers assumed the Euro meant 'collective risk pooling' so the periphery countries loaded up on cheap debt. But when the crash happened - we discovered there were going to be no bailouts - leaving the periphery with a massive balance sheet problem, and the total inability to manage monetary policy - or rather - they're stuck on a 'strict currency' which favours Germany who already had several advantages.

But I agree, if Scotland does go indy, then it may very well introduce a pegged currency, which makes sense as something temporary.

"The general feeling is that this vote will now succeed."

Polling for almost a year (see Wikipedia) indicates that it will not succeed - there's only one of more than a dozen or so polls that puts independence ahead - and then only by one point. 'Remain' are ahead by 10 points in the rest.

The easy trump card to play is the fact that Spain and others (Belgium) will not allow Scotland to join the EU, even if they do - it will take years.

An 'independent Scotland from an independent UK' is a huge pile of risk for people to stomach.

With the UK faring economically well since Brexit (I know A50 has not been triggered, but investors have already priced in what they know, and A50 is a sure thing) - this is not the 'Brexit horror' story the indyreffers wanted.

I would also point out that these things can fatigue on people, and that after a while, even soft Nationalists see the tactics of separatists.

The SNP said the last referendum was a "once in a lifetime" event - and that was 4 years ago. 'The situation has changed' - surely - but nevertheless, it makes them look rather without credibility on the surface of it.

It will be very interesting though.

?

Again, NYC is not America.

Again, we're talking about poverty rates, not homeless rates.

Yes, I understand 'Latino' is not always central/south American in the classic sense, but fyi - Latino's are far more likely to be classified as 'White' than 'African American' - i.e. Spanish, Cubans etc.

I disagree. It's not clear at all.

If you are using the above logic of 'if you bought in 2008 and held today' - then it's about market timing, not fundamentals.

Anyhow - you cannot win over time, unless you can beat Deep Blue over chess.

And by 'win' I mean outperform the market.

Of course, some people will, some won't - but it's a game of probability there.

Again - unless you specifically have more information that the person you are trading with - then you're throwing darts at the board.

99.9% of Retail Traders do not have any special information WRT their investments. Ergo, they are not really investing.

You're missing the point.

It's not possible to 'time the market'.

If you, or anyone else could, they would be Trillionaires.

By picking an arbitrary point in time - and comparing it to another arbitrary point in time (say, 'today'), you create a straw-man argument.

"Even if you miraculously had horrible luck and bought into an index at literally the worst possible time, you would have still made money."

Yes, stocks went from some low point, to a higher point today.

When you say 'this holds true for every index' - well, a broad ranges of indexes roughly encompasses the entire market.

Ergo - you're really just investing in the stock market, not indexes.

Unless you know something very specific about VFINX - and have research that other people do not have on the constituent companies, then you are just throwing darts at a wall. If you made money, great, if not, then it's the same thing.

What someone who doesn't have specific information is doing when they play the market willy nilly, is simply riding the overall market. And like other asset classes, it goes up and down.

There are historical averages for markets, and in the long run you can expect to earn just a little under that.

Interest rates are at an historic low, and we have bubble-like conditions in the market - if the Fed increases by a couple of basis points, much of that gain will go away.

SF is not California.

Moreover, it's not even the 'Bay Area' - it's a tiny, unrepresentative spot of 700 000 people.

Also - 'homelessness' is not the same thing as 'under the poverty line'.

California is 33% latino, and less than 7% African American.

African Americans might be more likely to be 'in poverty', sadly, but there are nearly 5x more Latino Americans than African Americans in California.

This does not even include a large population undocumented people, who are far more likely to be Latino than Black.

Here is the data:

https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf

In the US, Latino Americans are just slightly less likely to be 'in poverty' than African Americans. In California, with a 5x more population, that would very roughly boil down to 5x more Latino Americans in poverty than African Americans.

Hence my point.

"The poorest people are rural whites and southern/inner city African Americans. "

I don't agree.

There are very large numbers of Central/South Americans who come to Cali, largely unskilled, and they occupy the biggest part of the economic underclass.

Think of how many are not even 'on the books'? I'd argue it's very difficult for an undocumented person to make that much.

It's not a 'moral' statement, it's just a reality of the blending of people from different civilizations in one pot.

Large scale migration from poor countries will definitely be a factor.

And as one commenter above noted - the 'weather' does as well.

Nice weather attracts more vagabonds. This is true in Canada s well, BC has way more street people than Ontario where it's extremely cold and extremely uncomfortable for street people in the winter. Again, not a moral statement. Just fairly rational human nature.