JackPoach

The points are valid. But it's entirely possible to replace 'Bad Economics' with even 'Worse Economics'

It's not just density, many books are pure nonsense. So 200 books of pure nonsense a year won't teach you much. They'll just introduce you to a ton of terrible ideas.

This is nothing new. Molten salt ideas have been around 30+ years and there are projects in Spain and other countries that tested them on small scale. The economics is still poor.

Real wages have been stagnant since 1970s in the US. Median household incomes have only gone up because some people work in highly paid industries, like IT, plus household incomes include income from stocks and real estate AND most households now are two working adults.

Clearly the Fed mostly. We'll see it once the supply chain issues go away, but high prices stay high.

And it's probably going to only get worse looking at Fed

It's not an indicator problem, it's a problem of people trying to time markets. Also, there are two ways to use the Buffet Indicator - right and wrong. The wrong way is to say 'it's overvalued, I should do something - short the market'. The right way is 'it's overvalues, I should avoid doing something - buying overvalued stocks'.

Buffett has been sitting on piles of cash in the past for years and years, avoiding buying securities when they are overvalued. He never tried timing the market, simply waiting for the right moment. Nor did he sell stocks when they were overvalued in order to try to buy them back at a lower cost at least AFAIK from reading his biographies. So, for a value investor, it's a useful tool.

Did you study the work of Ralph Nader and the auto industry? Or the history of tobacco industry? There are multiple examples when it worked in the past. I am quite confident that when abuse goes too far, the pushback is even bigger. I just don't want to oversimplify the issue and say that any big corporation or any IT giant is bad by nature. It's growing pains in my book.

Well, when each country does that it becomes economically unfeasible. Such fines work and work very well, once FB realizes that they lose more money from unethical behavior than they make, they'll stop it. I don't believe that any corporation is evil. I do believe that there are temptations to do bad things in order to make money, even if short term. This corrects such behavior. Hopefully.

It's kind of strange to compare companies strictly based on their valuation. Saudi Aramco valuation today is higher than that of Apple but these are very different companies and I wouldn't claim that one is better than the other.

Though coronavirus is very different in many respects, it's worthwhile (especially if you are older like me) to remember the history of AIDS. We've learned to live with it and limit its spread very effectively in the western world.

There's huge inflation in many things related to making cars (chips, steel, shipping costs as many cars are still being shipped across the ocean, labor costs, etc.). We are likely to be in the very beginning of significant inflation cycle, with probably double digit inflation which will eventually drop to 4-4.5%. I wouldn't expect to prices to drop any time soon, nor have 2% inflation. My bet is that fewer and fewer new cars will be sold in the next few years (3-5) with prices rising 4-10% each year.

My argument is as follows - happiness can not AND should not be measured.

Now, that doesn't mean that you can't define happiness as you want it and pursue it on an individual level. For instance - walking in the park makes you 'happy' (as self reported feeling). Yoga makes you happy. Meditation makes you happy. Great - go for it.

BUT it's pointless to even attempt to measure 'group happiness' and try to increase it. People make pointless statements and point fingers in on the wrong directions. The article is about technology and I am sick and tired listening to how technology makes people unhappy or happy. Governments are often blamed for policies that make people unhappy. Society is probably blamed the most for people not being happy. It's too materialistic, the goals are wrong, bla-bla-bla.

BTW Here's the exact meter definition - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre

Maybe, maybe not - you'd have to define which complex set of chemical combination is happiness and which isn't. But why? We know a lot about neurochemistry. We know a lot about receptors, neuromodulators and their interactions (serotonin, addiction). As a biologist I don't understand - why would you want even study something that doesn't exist (happiness), when you can study specific parts of neurochemistry that are more practical and may have actual benefits (like reduction of addiction or help with schizophrenia)

No, it's not my logic and your conclusion is incorrect. Measurement units don't actually exist (meters, seconds, inches, pounds, liters) - yet that's how we measure things and very successfully.

Abstractions are critical to human thinking in science. But not only reification is very different, you can't measure happiness even if you want to. You'll always have to go 'happiness as defined ...' or resort to people self reporting their feelings. Which is fine - I always ask my kids how they feel. I just understand that not only kids and adults may change how they feel next hour but that those feelings are unreliable. If you have kids of your own, you know how many 'tragedies' they lived through by the age of 6.

Wouldn't it then be easier and more logical to set the goal as 'reduction of work hours from ... to...'?

Personally, I don't believe that working less (or more) makes people happy (unhappy), but my whole point is that defining your future goals in terms of happiness and attempting to measure it is futile by definition.

You are absolutely correct. Moreover, reifications can be useful or harmful - purely based on how they are being used. That's why maps are actually useful, except for several individuals that died in Australia and other places by trusting their navigators more than their own eyes and actual surroundings. I've been in situations where GPS malfunctioned and when I quickly realized it I understood that I should not follow the map.

Do you understand the concept of reification? If not, see

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/reification#:~:text=Re....

So if you feel happy (or miserable) it means just that - that you feel happy (or miserable). It doesn't mean that happiness or misery actually exist literally.

Should we be measuring at all? Claiming that people have to be more happy over time is a weird proposition for a biologist like me. Not only happiness does not exist (see reification), the idea that it can be 'measured and improved' is silly. Should the next generation of birds be more happy and fulfilled than the previous one? Should the next generation of chimps have stronger lasting relationships? Does it even makes sense? To me it doesn't. We are biological creatures and each one of us chooses to construct meaning of life (or lack thereof) individually.

Similar things happen in US on a much larger scale. Simply search for 'Amazon hire to fire' 'GE Neutron Jack' or 'Microsoft annual review system'

Yep. So basically the same approach can/should be used here too.

Sure, there were, but things changed. Can you tell me how you see this 'right' realistically being implemented in the public sector, which is the largest employer in the western world (government, agencies, schools, universities, military, hospitals, non-profits). I have two school children which were taught by Zoom and it was a disaster. As a taxpayer, I want my children to be taught IN PERSON in real classroom - because the results are much better. Pandemic - fine, we'll stick to Zoom, but if there's no threat, real classroom. Let's say you make it a 'right' so every teacher can choose how to teach. Suppose most teachers opt to teach remotely, while most parents choose in person in classroom education. What then? Your only option either to force those teachers who what to work remotely only to work from school OR hire new teachers, clearly stating that they will have to work from the class room. So basically, you don't solve anything.

Same with most other public work - let's take police. Yeah, if you are a beat cop, you've got to pound the streets. But you are a detective. Can't you say that you want to talk to witnesses and suspects from your home via Zoom? Sure witnesses might chose to visit the station, but you don't want to do interrogation in person, because you think that it can be done just as effectively from home. Or hospitals.

The more you think about it (at least in my case) the less idea of 'remote work right' makes sense. Option - yes, right - no. It simply makes things worse, not better.

If you don't understand it, try flipping the situation around. Try justifying 'the right to work from office' for a person like me (which is not totally true - I can work both from home or office, I just prefer office for social reasons). Let's say I get hired by Basecamp, which is remote only with no office. I then claim that 'work from office' is my right because whatever. It's just a type of spoiled entitled brat that am. Now Basecamp or any other fully remote company is forced to rent an office just for me and maybe a few others who also share inclination to work from the office. Meanwhile, there are a ton of 'office vacancies' out there that I could have easily applied to given my background. How is it fair to Basecamp?

How is it different from current situation, where there are a ton of open vacancies for remote work already available on the market. I.e. why does it have to be the right?

Here's my argument - stop thinking of yourself as an employee. Instead, think of yourself as someone who buys the service. Think of a service that can be done either remotely or in person, but you STRONGLY prefer it to be in office/on-premises. For instance, psychotherapy can be done via Zoom, but you really want it to be in person. Or yoga class - you can do it in home via Zoom or Youtube, but you prefer the gym. Or classes. Or whatever, but think of something that you want to pay for and for you it has to be in person, even though it can be done remotely as well.

Now, think of a mechanism that guarantees that you can buy this service in person in a marketplace where every person has the right to work from home or not. Wouldn't companies have to create multiple vacancies and some vacancies would be 'work from work only' and some would be flexible? I see no other way. You can't be one sided and think only about employees or only about employers. You have to think about consumers too. After all, we are typically all three - we are hired from some jobs, we hire for others and we surely consume a lot in addition to producing something.

Yeah, but is working from home really a 'right' akin to 8 hour day or a 'perk' similar to office dinners or sabbaticals or corporate Christmas parties?

Yeah, but how is it different from any other human interaction? Let's say you have a partner and you have a kink that makes you happy. But your partner doesn't share this kink with you, they aren't into it. What should you do? Should you force your partner into the kink so that you are happy? Or should you simply find others who share the kink with you and make yourself and others happy? You can't live your life thinking 'everyone but me should change to fit my desires'. With so many remote work options out there if it's deal breaker for you, it's easy to find work with another company or work for yourself. But yeah, you are correct - you lose a lot when you do that too. If your employer is great and your co-workers are awesome you can get remote work that you so desire but your new company and people might totally suck.

Moreover there's no 'right to work from office' either. Nor should there be. Economics doesn't work this way.

Sorry, but you can't make up 'rights' as you go. When did remote work became a right and why? I too can make up 'rights' that I'd like to have. For instance, I'd like to to be the 21st century right for every employee to get 50% of the company profit IN ADDITION to their salary. Why? Because I think it's a right. After all, don't employees drive company profits? Shouldn't they be compensated properly? I sure would. It's very easy to claim that salary alone is not enough and only profit-sharing is fair (BTW, there are companies that work this way - and this is great). If you think that your argument is correct, turn in the other way around. Let's say you are a consumer of goods and services. You want education? Great - no more face to face learning in the lecture room. Only Zoom and video. Why? Because it's teachers right. Lawyers and doctors - no office visits, unless it's emergency. Why? They have the right to work from home too. Shopping? Online orders only man. It's the right. Would you want to live in the world that works this way? Probably not.

I believe this debate is absolutely pointless. There are people who work better in the office and there are people who work better from home (or just as well). There are companies who are willing to offer remote work option and those that aren't. Rather than trying to change someone (employees or companies) simply pick the counter part that matches your preference. There are great and shitty companies/employees that have totally different views on the subject. Trying to prove one is better than the other is akin to saying that flying is better than swimming and birds are superior to fish. You don't want to go back to the office? Great, this option is finally available to many/most people in IT. I love working from my office. I sit with 2 other people in the room that used to have 20 employees and having a total blast. I absolutely disliked working from home (wife and two kids), but that's me. There's no right or wrong here.

I think claiming that 25-40 is your best years is gross oversimplification. I am 42 and consider it to be the best time of my life. And considering that I will probably be financially independent before my 50s, I think that might be might best decade. Especially after my kids grow up and me and my wife will no longer need to make plans around them.

Well, overpriced anything makes a terrible investment - housing, stock market, art, land, etc. Education is no exception.