According to TFA, however, they are working on a far more efficient design.
Problem is, it needs to be an open multi-national research project, free of patent or copyright encumbrances and then continue to be developed upon that basis, greed means it won't happen for decades of chaos of multiple language, growing dying, growing dying, but hey, greed. It will happen eventually but only after the current run of greed obsessed freaks are gone.
It runs for quite a while. Basically to keep share price well beyond realistic price profit ratio, all sorts of weird crap happens in corporate accounting. So for example buying in revenue to increase revenue with the pretence of future higher profits, collapses when debt becomes to high, no higher profits ever occur (often impossible as they paid too much for the companies they buy) and eventually the share price drops to realistic levels, problem is the debt is way too high for that price and everyone gets worried and boom, it all collapses (the financial institutions are the ones that profit playing in the background like the true psychopaths they are).
Hence why Milo is again seeking data related to his account, which when provided will almost certainly demonstrate that his account was suspended for political reasons and not for actual 'harassment'
Sure a good thing for ISIS they didn't call Leslie Jones a 'black dude' or write a negative review of Ghostbusters (current year), otherwise they too would be on the receiving end of wrath of @Jack.
There a very good reason for that:have a look at this link
So because Democrats aren't getting the sort of money Republicans are from the NRA... that justifies their rather anti-second amendment views?
If you look at the numbers, the NRA spend almost nothing with Democrats, but nearly $600,000 with Republicans.
In that case... if we look at this link... does that mean that Republicans are perfectly justified in seeking to de-fund Planned parenthood (who unlike the NRA, receives federal dollars) as they didn't get most of the 600k+ which was spent in the current cycle?
If they want support from Democrats, they need to pay for it like everyone else. Don't go pretending it has anything to do with ethics or beliefs.
Or... some people/groups have beliefs which are not so easily swayed by campaign contributions... so the $$$ spenders notice this and end up giving money both to those who can be swayed, but also in support of those who already share their view.
In the real world, it's been noted that employment above a certain threshold is unstable. In the United States, Full Employment is usually defined as 95%, meaning our current 4.9% unemployment is higher than full employment; some people speculate we'd be okay as low as 4%, and the 4.9% thing is incorrect anyway (UE4 is 5.6%, which includes people who would work but have given up because they think there aren't jobs for them; UE5 and UE6 include people who would like to work, but can't because their situation precludes employment on its own).
In the real world, we can look at this instability. One thing that is quickly noticed is that it just isn't that unstable. Moving on:
To be fair, economists speculate low unemployment causes inflation. That is to say: at low unemployment rates, a business's strategic advantage for hiring an employee exceeds the cost of market wages, and so businesses pay more. If you cause high employment by providing a ton of extra spendable income, then businesses can raise prices, capture that income, and pay it as higher wages. The benefit vanishes, debts shrink, and savings go away. Such inflation also has all of the other destabilizing effects of inflation; and with a lot of people's savings held in 401(k) markets (which inflate right along with inflation) and increased income allowing further increased spending, you can easily get a hyperinflation effect, followed by a money shortage, followed by extreme unemployment.
We have never seen this hyperinflation effect from low unemployment. We have seen plenty of cases of hyperinflation from the currency issuer printing vast amounts of money often to support extravagant entitlement programs.
Remember when Zimbabwe issued a 100-trillion-dollar bill?
Case in point. Zimbabwe prints a ton of money and gets hyperinflation. This is despite having an insane unemployment rate somewhere in the high double digits (depends on how it's counted and who's doing the counting).
Here's the problem with this alleged hyperinflation threat. Wage money is slow money. Inflation from it is naturally lagged by a great deal because it takes so long to get from higher product prices to higher wages. You simply can't create hyperinflation from the dynamics of the system.
Even your wealth redistribution scheme is slow money. It takes time to take from the wealthy and give to the poor.
Second, this completely ignores two things, that value is created and that there are alternatives to employing people in the region, such as employing people in other regions and automation.Value creation is another reason inflation is mitigated or doesn't happen. And it is the whole point of the economy not the number that currently happens to be assigned to a good in a market.
While it's not universal, there are many jobs that scale and produce more value for more work per person. Arbitrarily forcing people to work less means less gets done.
Finally, on this particular matter, when more value is created, then there is more stuff for money to chase and hence, less inflation.
If the effect is particularly large, your economy collapses outright. If it's not so large, you get a minor recession, like in 2008.
This is probably the worst misattribution I've ever heard for the real estate crisis of 2007-2008. There wasn't a recession because employment was a little high. There was a recession because of a vast malinvestment in real estate which can be traced back to two things, easy central bank money and extreme leverage in the real estate markets.
As for real-world examples of negative unemployment, they don't exist because nobody has ever managed to increase the income efficiency of an economy by 15% before (we take 30% in taxes in the United States; cutting out 50% of that would be a 15% increase in take-home wages, and the way I structured it mostly puts that back down to the lower and middle-classes, so consumer spending power gets a 20%-25% boost). That is to say: Nobody's taken an economy where consumer demand requires 95% of the labor force to be employed and boosted it such that you now need 95% * 1.15 = 109% (or 1.18% for a 25% boost).
My take is that won't happen except in the case of extreme disasters. Consumer demand isn't that inelastic unless you need massive amounts of labor just to feed people. There have been hypothetical scenarios (such as some "peak oil" cases) and historical examples of collapse due to huge declines in agriculture or social cohesion (such the Mayan decline or the Bronze Age Collapse). But those aren't triggered by too much employment, but rather by conditions getting bad enough that human labor wasn't enough to survive under the existing system.
So who is going to make, transport, and retail all this shit we can buy, now that over 70% of all consumers have somewhere between 1.15 and 3 times as much money to spend? When we hire them, how much money will they have to spend, and who will make the shit they start buying with it?
Why the people who work, of course. In a sane world, there would be more employment followed by immigration, global trade, and automation to leverage the people who are already working. We already have a variety of mechanisms for solving this problem.
What I find utterly mystifying is that in the face of this alleged crisis of labor supply your proposed solution is to artificially restrict supply and make it worse. Should we solve a famine by withholding food from starving people? Should we solve a drought by withholding available water from elsewhere? If we're experiencing traffic jams, should we destroy roads?
The fastest way to go from 95% employment to your 109% is to restrict the amount of work that people can do. This just doesn't make sense and runs completely counter to your concerns.
What do you think? Inflation equivalent to the inflation between 1980 and 2005 happening ALL AT ONCE? The rich just reclaim it all, right? In my system, 17% of that income is reclaimed and handed right back down to
No. While there has been some cases of rapid economic growth triggering inflation (eg, 19th Century mining towns in the US West), it's something that has rapidly corrected itself, sometimes by recession. I don't consider this even within an order of magnitude of your concern.
I've got to say though - Uber seems like it pays much better than most courier services used to pay drivers to deliver things!
I tried working for one of them, once -- and quit within a week. During the lunch rush, they had us delivering boxed lunches to various locations where we were only compensated about $1.50 for each successful delivery. Since you had to seek out people, parking your vehicle and taking things into buildings to them, you wasted a lot of time too.
The vehicle maintenance is always a factor -- but for people doing these jobs part-time, I think most rationalize some of it away, so to speak. (If you drive your car or truck a lot for various activities, adding some Uber trips means at least you're offsetting the total cost of its operation by doing some things that actually bring in revenue. With or without the Uber driving, you were going to have items breaking down and wearing out anyway.) The fact is, vehicle purchases are terrible investments. They depreciate 20% the minute you drive a new one off the lot, and in many cases, keep plummeting in value based on nothing more than the whims of the buying public, as the years pass. Viewed that way? I guess ANY time you can drive one someplace and get paid something, you're lessening that overall bleeding of money.
As others commented, this really seems to just be part of a "long play", ensuring a piece of the self-driving taxi business once it becomes possible. As heavily as Google has invested in self-driving vehicles, it seems obvious they wouldn't want to just give the whole market for self-driving cabs up to business like Uber or Lyft.
If they just want to establish their name in the market, in the meantime? Google could operate something like this at a loss, considering that "marketing expenses", as they evolve towards eliminating the human driver.
(I also get that the "original" part of this is supposed to be the idea that it works more like carpooling, where it tries to match up groups of people all headed the same direction to share costs. But really, I doubt that business model will be too effective. If people hailing a cab have to wait for others interested in heading the same way at the same time, they'll often find that's too slow except in major cities around "prime time" travel hours. And unless the driver has a full size van or bus or something -- you're not going to get that many people you can take around at one time.)
As a side note? I don't know what the experience of others has been, but I'm finding Uber going downhill. I was truly impressed with the service the first few times I used it, in the DC metro area. But more recently, like during our weekend trip in Ocean City, MD last weekend? I've had some struggles with the iPhone app where it offers to auto-fill your start location from the GPS location detected on its map. But I wind up where it gets my start and destination info reversed, or doesn't get the start location just right - so the driver goes to the wrong place to try to pick us up. Then, it seems like the drivers try to resolve it by calling me, but are invariably nearly impossible to understand due to bad cell connections and thick accents.
Meanwhile, the Lyft app just seems to get things right on the first try -- working more smoothly. Unfortunately, Lyft seems to have much less presence around here so most of the time, it says there are no available vehicles.
The worst naming was a company that used rocks for their product names.
Granite, Amethyst, Quartz, Topaz. These were video encoders, transport stream processors, video servers, etc., but I was never able to remember which was which.
Which basically means that Apple will take advantage of it, but Microsoft won't. This was touted as one of the prime features of the Surface Pro 4, along with the deep sleep states. Except that the W10 OS is so horribly managed that it never turns over control to the CPU of clock speed, and any process of any type can prevent the OS from allowing the CPU from going into a deep sleep state. And, by all user accounts, that's exactly what happens on the Surface Pro. The SP4 team has pretty much given up on the connected sleep and you just expect that the machine will randomly stay awake until it hits 0% battery after 12 hours or so in your bag. The OS group, otoh, has made the Anniv. Update a CPU killer by locking the CPU at it's maximum 100% of the time under default settings, and there is no "fix" from MS - just users who have figured registry hacks to allow forced low power states so you can manage clock speed in meatspace. Not exactly a ms-level response time to changing needs.
Because a market with negative unemployment can't sustain itself, and rapidly destabilizes and then collapses.
Ok, what is a real world example of this? Because I find it hard to believe that it can even happen much have such a negative effect.
Oh, so this is theft and actual violent removal of private property by the state under the name of 'taxation' is not theft? The actual theft happens when the violent means of a state are used to forcefully take property of a person or his business regardless of what the name is. A rose by any other name... Ireland is the best thing that happened in this insane world.
Keep in mind your pool was 'in country' and not a politicians mansion in another country paid for with kickbacks from those tax frauds. So more naughty than evil or conspiring to be tax pirates pillaging other countries social services.