Lets not pretend that every human is capable of doing any of this if they only had the time. The people who are capable will do it, the rest won't.
It seems unlikely to me with advances in genetics (and 'consumer' demand) that future generations will reflect the intelligence and talent distribution of current generations.
Not that I necessarily agree with the views of the parent post (I don't know them well enough), but I think you're looking at "now" to argue the impossibility of "then". In other words, I don't think our current society really reflects much of what society will have to become in the fairly near-term future.
We already have effectively unlimited energy in the form of the sun (we currently collect only a tiny, tiny fraction of its full output), I don't see how teleportation factors into it, food production seems likely to become almost entirely robot-driven within, say, a 50 year time-frame (by competitive influence), we're progressing by leaps and bounds in the area of human health, and population management will obviously be necessary to balance quality-of-life and resource concerns.
You can't anticipate anything though. Perhaps someday we will have a bucolic utopian society, but we can't make current decisions based on those assumptions.
You can't anticipate anything? I think you need to expand on that.
I don't think I saw anyone advocating making decisions now based on assumptions of a Utopian society. Personally, I advocate making decisions now that increase the odds of said Utopian society.
As a former Oaklander, I take offense at your statement. :-)
Oakland exists as an industrial hub. Emeryville, on the other hand, exists as a suburb of San Francisco (though I think that with recent business expansion, it's becoming its own city). As far as I know, this is still the case, and more people live and work in Oakland than live in Oakland and commute into SF.
SF just isn't worth it anymore. The fog (I know there are fog-free areas, but much of SF is foggy-to-super-foggy), the filth, the homeless, and the insane landlords and rents are out of hand. Also, I'm of the opinion that SF culture peaked in the 90s.
SF in the 90s was an awesome place for punk and industrial music, cyberpunk visions of the future, ratbikes, raves, and a lot more arty types mixing with the nerds. As things cleaned up and gentrified, a lot of what I consider to be the cool culture was replaced by trustifarians and graphic designers who like to cultivate the image of a bicycle messenger or blue-collar worker.
SF still has a lot to offer, but it just feels very fake and flooded with money to me. When everyone in the room is making six figures, it's hard to take the person in the thrift-shop shirt and tattoos seriously.
Huh. I don't spend too much time around SOMA, but last time I was in in the area around UW at night, it had a less pronounced but still similar vibe to Haight St in SF or parts of Telegraph in Berkeley. Various groups of people who appeared to be setting up the sleeping bags and pit bull for another night in the doorway of a closed store or restaurant.
SF is a particularly bad case, but as far as I can tell, Seattle has plenty of this too.
You probably look to rent in Oakland instead. Rockridge and Lake Merritt are very nice areas (Rockridge being my preference, as there seems to be less property crime, and I lived there for six years).
What's the success rate among entrepreneurs? Don't most small businesses tank within the first three years? Does this really help if "millions of kids a year" are entering the workforce?
That said, looking at my (much) younger cousins and their friends, it strikes me that the latest generation of 20-somethings are already impressively entrepreneurial. However, I don't see many of their businesses scaling enough to support a family, much less employ scads of others.
Most successful entrepreneurs failed at least once until they made it. I can only speak from experience, the startup founder that I worked for had three failed attempts before he made it (relatively) big.
My other point was exactly that. Most small businesses will fail, but the ones that succeed will be the job creators (I hate that buzzword!) and hire the ones that didn't make it.
After having worked for a startup myself for a while, I am now ready to try it on my own. If I fail, there's always other successful startups I could work for. If I succeed, I'll need good employees, and someone who tried and failed (but learned from the experience) would be a prime candidate.
Less capital now than ever. Local service businesses like "Mop It Up" would cost almost nothing to operate. The barrier to entry is simply that the work is undesirable. This makes it valuable.
I don't think your conclusion at the end is true. Most undesirable work is in fact not valuable, in the sense of being paid well or easy to get, because, at least if it's also unskilled, there is a large supply of labor relative to demand. Stuff like janitorial work does not pay well and has no shortage. Similarly with McDonald's: they typically get many more applications than open positions, and not because they're paying $20/hr.
There was a story (I think it was on reddit, not HN) of an entrepreneur who bootstrapped a local cleaning business in something like three months, by hiring his maid as his first employee. The guy does not mop up himself, but runs an incredibly successful business with a web-based reservation system. The rest of his job is people and asset management.
So even with janitorial work, an educated graduate can turn it into a profitable business, without actually doing the cleaning himself.
Edit: his site is http://www.maidsinblack.com/ and he does a great job of documenting his startup experience step by step on reddit. If I find the thread, I'll post it here.
Well, I certainly hope you're right, but I have my reservations about small businesses, particularly those run by young, inexperienced people, scaling in order to employ others. I do think that the recent trend of staying "at home" longer may help with this. Also, if we can get more affordable housing in areas populated enough to support commerce, things might improve a lot.
Without further information, I have no reason to think that the scenario you described is illegal. In fact, I've seen any number of motorists, motorcyclists, and cyclists do exactly that.
Incidentally, the whole notion of cyclists being subject to the same laws as cars is rather ridiculous. Bicycles are not cars, just as cars are not "road train" semis.
Yes, Oregon's U-turn law is a constant source of annoyance in the pacific northwest. Meanwhile, if U-turns were made illegal in California, navigating the bay area would have a twilight zone quality to it.
>Incidentally, the whole notion of cyclists being subject to the same laws as cars is rather ridiculous.
That may very well be how you feel; but, according to California vehicle code, bicycles and automobiles are bound by pretty much the same traffic laws, with few differences --such as a few sidewalk exceptions, having to keep right, etc.
Marginalization and subsequent restriction/legislation/oppression is extremely effective in our society, and something that we should always take a stand against.
Based upon my limited information regarding this latest change, I don't have a problem with it. However, their rhetoric for quite some time has revolved around statements along the lines of "why should you have to pay for these abusive users downloading X gigabytes every month?" Of course, in two years you will also be in this "abusive" category. I believe they will happily use marginalization in order to raise rates without objection.
They link to another tear-down of a fake charger that takes potentially dangerous shortcuts. Also, it generates noise which can interfere with the touch-screen.
It seems unlikely to me with advances in genetics (and 'consumer' demand) that future generations will reflect the intelligence and talent distribution of current generations.