followed tags: 43
followed domains: 1
badges given: 8 of 8
member for: 1476 days
Or use a zester is exactly right. Wait a second BA, can't I just use a second pan here? I'm not cooking on a hot plate here.
Just saying, I love my Blue Apron. I cook way better than I used to, and I don't have to go shopping for stupid little ingredients all the time in an effort to cook eclectic things.
The VC people are the buyers at the early stage though. They're buying a piece of the profits if the product sells. But in the end, if no consumers actually buy it, they're fucked.
Quip won't work. They're trying to take the Dollar Shave Club business model and extend it a few inches across the bathroom counter to the toothbrush. The problem is that no one was gouging on electric toothbrush heads for years like GIllette and Schick were doing with razors. They can't shave 95 percent off the price and still make money. And that's not a VC/Silicon Valley brand trying to get you into their propietary system, that's Proctor & Gamble.
The proprietary business model won't work for much longer beacuse it's extremely easy for a factory in another country to produce a product that fits exactly the same way, but they didn't have to sell you the expensive part first. I get my sonicare toothbrush heads from ToothCo on Amazon, for example.
There is no direct quote of the forced to participate, but it's the last half of the article. This is a good example:
"Why is everything so expensive? Because Silicon Valley and Wall Street are taking huge percentages out of transactions they once didn’t. That’s why. The Juiceros make inexpensive and functional products far more expensive and often less functional..."
Everything he talks about being expensive, you don't have to buy. The choice is not forcing things to be more expensive for anyone who doesn't want to buy it.
In the link he provides, it talks about how rent has gone up, and how college costs have gone up, and even how food prices have gone down, but there are lots of reasons (increased median income and population density in cities without increase in space, easy access to guaranteed governemnt back loans for college and a society pushing everyone to go, increased global yield) that have very little if anything to do with VC and Silicon Valley. He's just using it to make it look ilke he did some research while it doesn't lend any creedence to his case.
Silicon valley did not invent rich people getting ripped off by slick sales people.
So, uh, don't buy it. Don't give the toothbrush company your bank info. Don't participate in a system that you don't want to support. There are still 5-for-a-buck toothbrushes at the drug store. There are still juicers that you put fruit into the top of and juice comes out. And, there are even companies who will buy the fruit for you, and sell you the juice pre-squeezed in every flavor and consistency you can imagine!
Juicero affects me none. New York and San Francisco rents affect me none. Because I don't buy a Juicero and I woudln't live somewhere that rent costs so much and home ownership is impossible. There are plenty of jobs elsewhere.
This article is annoying because it stands on the premise that someone offering a choice to you is the same as you being forced to participate, and that a choice you don't agree with is somehow this nefarious plot to screw your life up. Fiverr doesn't exist to destroy the middle class dream. It connects freelancers with people who hire them.
Tax reform could be really simple.
Flat tax, tax credits up to the federal poverty line so as to not regressively tax the poor. No exemptions, no deductions.
No tax refunds, because you know exactly what you're paying right out of your check and you wouldn't start paying until you were above the poverty line. You're just done right off the bat.
Tax investment income the same way. All income is the same no matter what the source.
Fair. I'll never find a true free market economy to figure it out. It's just a question.
I guess my question there is, what if there is a logarithmic curve to real median income growth for a given mix of workers? What if, instead of continuing to rise without limit, the curves tapers as a market is willing to sustain only that level of pay for work, regardless of efficiency gains and productivity. Maybe we hit that limit in 1998 and now we're going to be stuck there until a major change.
In that case, it would make sense that real income growth stalls and swings around that set limit until something else changes. We would see a huge gain in highest-level earners as they pocket the difference in profits, but also in an effort to compete we would see workers expand into other countries which have not reached that limit.
I don't argue that there are more billionaires, or that income growth for a ton of people has stopped within a set of countries, I'm just curious to see if that's a natural phenomenon now that the 'easy' income growth of getting into a new level of professional economy has already happened. Maybe the next change is automization which throws everything for a way bigger loop. Or maybe it's just that China becomes an economy on par with the West and makes a huge difference in consumption and supply of money in a wider middle class.
Who's we? Americans? More people are making money all over the world today and Americans already have it much better than most in almost every way. I don't want to go back. American median income is 51k. That puts us in the global 1%. Why would I argue against that just because some people have a lot more?
The American dream just moved on to China for now.
The way they talk about mobility is just comparing the amount of people who make more than their parents which is probably a good way to do it. But once you reach a certain level of income, say 75,000 in a place where that buys you a solid place in the middle class, why is it not the American dream for your kids to continue to live in that way? They still have the middle class life.