There are a couple of different population projections out there and, of course, predictions about the future are hard. But all of them show a population peak around 2100 of maybe 10-12 billion people.
13,900 karma · joined February 20, 2010
i turn beer into software
CTO at Attentive
formerly of Google, Foursquare & Hometeam
harryh@gmail.com
twitter.com/harryh
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/harryh; my proof: https://keybase.io/harryh/sigs/B_kutY7tn-hD5ykoMIVuWskK8l2dXy-e0zT6kPM9q9Y ]There are a couple of different population projections out there and, of course, predictions about the future are hard. But all of them show a population peak around 2100 of maybe 10-12 billion people.
This is not true. The enormous rise in wealth of the world in the 20th/21st centuries has coincided with large increases in personal freedoms as well.
At any rate, I'm not sure a graph from the US starting at 1950 is sufficient for establishing historical trends.
The trend is consistent with other datasets:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2e/US...
This makes sense. As people get richer, they use some of their wealth to "purchase" more leisure time. There is no reason to think this won't happen in China, just like it has happened in other places.
I think your fear is unfounded.
You continue to make claims that are inconsistent with the data.
In the US, life expectancy at birth was around 53 in 1921. Today it's almost 79. That's a nearly 50% increase.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1040079/life-expectancy-...
It's a particularly interesting time to discount the life extension benefits of modern technology. We just saw multiple vaccines get developed and deployed in record time to significantly reduce the death toll from a worldwide pandemic. It's unlikely we would have seen this remarkable success even a decade ago.
Much of the rest of what you say is also inconsistent with actual data.
Though it's possible that there is enough information (age, tenure, gender) in the article to identify him. A bit hard to say.
He'd also have a pretty clear cut case with the NLRB if he was fired or otherwise punished for talking to the press about labor conditions (which isn't to say that this doesn't happen sometimes anyways).
EDIT: Er, nevermind. I misread it as being told to Mark McCarter thinking he was the Vice journalist. But he's actually the factory employee and Lauren Gurley is the journalist. I'm an idiot. TY ALittleLight for pointing out my mistake.
He wrote Hillbilly Elegy which was a NYTimes #1 bestseller, an Oprah book club pick, and sold over a million copies.
It also go made into a movie by Netflix.
He's now running for Senate in Ohio where he stands a decent chance of winning (though Josh Mandel is probably the current frontrunner).
This is such a tired phrase. Like if we had socialism or communism or some other -ism it wouldn't matter.
But that's just not true. The issue is math and the fact that prime age working people (25-55ish) are the ones that, for the most part, make stuff. If you have a shrinking population then the % of the population that makes stuff gets a lot smaller so everyone has to be poorer. No "economic system" can change that.
The use case for distributed ledgers is not at all clear, after over a decade of tinkering.
You could be right, but I wouldn't be surprised either way.
So your statement implies that a typical American family is losing over 40% of its purchasing power year over year.
This is, quite obviously, not the case.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/311672/support-sex-marriage-mat...
And based on the trend, it will cross 50% imminently (if it hasn't already).
A tax on, among other things, capital gains. See:
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/questions-and-answers-on-the-ne...
"8. What is included in Net Investment Income?
In general, investment income includes, but is not limited to: interest, dividends, capital gains..."
The capital gains rate in the UK is 20%.
https://www.gov.uk/capital-gains-tax/rates
The top capital gains rate in the US is 23.8% + state taxes.
I'll answer my own question: the root problem of too high rents is that governments:
1) have outlawed the construction of enough new housing to meet demand.
2) many places (CA especially) have property taxes that are drastically too low (and in CA's case, radically unfair).
Vacancy taxes are a bad hack. As you note in your comment you have to build in all kinds of grace periods or exceptions and even these can often be easily gamed or ignored.
Cities will be much better off if they fix the real underlying problems.
- Maybe they haven't found a suitable tenant yet.
- Maybe they are holding it open for a friend or family member.
- Maybe they want to do some renovations before renting it out.
- Maybe they want to sell the property and it's easier to sell without an existing tenant.
I can think of lots of reasons.