Norwegian Air does not serve free food on transcontinental flights. Fine by me, I'm comfortable surviving 12 hours without eating hot food, in fact I do it almost every day.
120 karma · joined November 9, 2016
Throughout US history there have been economically booming areas where people could move to become more prosperous. The majority of good new jobs are in cities. The fact that we are not building enough housing and transit infrastructure so people can actually live somewhere while working those jobs is a problem for national employment and economic growth. The landlords end up taking home a great share of the economic benefit instead of the workers as the price for scarce housing is bid up. This is also the root cause of gentrification.
This leads to megacommutes as people occupy housing further and further from the booming economy. That's clearly the case in the Bay Area, where many cities have built more units of office space than housing, guaranteeing a rough commute for the people who work in those buildings.
Seems obvious that leaks assisting the pro-Putin candidate were not altruistic.
It's not just about whether return is positive, it's about the highest ROI considering opportunity cost.
Consider a simple case where two lots with one story of development each can produce as much as a single lot with two stories of development. With a tax on land+improvements, a landlord does not prefer one over the other. With a tax on land value only, the single lot with two stories is preferred.
>If they doesn't have the money/capital to do so, they should sell the land to someone else.
Indeed. If the neighbors have ten stories of development, a landlord with a one-story building will not be able to afford the LVT and will sell to someone who can afford to build ten stories.
Given historical population growth of California, I think it's not a winning argument. Very few of California's residents have moral ground to live here at the exclusion of others. Pretty much everyone moved here. The only way forward is to allow enough homes to be built for everyone who wants to live here.
I can't speak for the author, but every SaaS company I have been involved with had marginal costs such as customer support. When you are a tiny company and these tasks are performed by founders you could perhaps roll these costs into overhead and claim 100% gross profit. But as a growing company it would become clear that you need to hire someone for every X customers.
Anyone hoping Uber is going to run out of VC money and lose favor after being forced to raise prices in cities where it is already popular is going to be sorely disappointed. Uber is profitable in those cities. The more plausible failure scenario is that it doesn't succeed in new markets and therefore ends up being worth less than its current valuation.
It's a good thing to increase the number of travel accommodations so more people can explore the world. I like Airbnb's mission better than that of a lot of Silicon Valley startups.
It's unfortunate that, at scale, Airbnb becomes part of a larger problem: there is not enough housing in many major cities. This is an unforced error we are making as a civilization, because we have the technology to easily provide enough housing in an affordable way (elevators, concrete).
Due to the limited supply of housing, the price will be bid up by the most economically efficient use - shoving a stream of daily renters through your condo building's lobby at the highest rate possible. A better outcome would be new facilities dedicated for this use case.
When the pie is not big enough, we are inevitably going to have a lot of tough fights over how to break it up. In this case, the poor locals who can't afford a place to rent and richer locals who are annoyed by the foreigners in their condo building lobby are going to win out over the people who want to explore the world.
I think an independent California would have a good relationship with Mexico. Though I'm interested in why you think we wouldn't.