Zillow already has that. You input an address and it tells you the distance in time by transportation method on each property details screen. You can also sort properties according to distance from the given address. The software labels it a "work" address, but you will face no consequences for using an address that you do not work at.
The problem is that this shows you how long it takes to get to a single place, rather than showing a map visualization like this site. I've often really wanted this on StreetEasy especially. I don't want to know how long it takes just to get to work, I want to know how long it takes to every neighborhood I regularly travel to.
Agree it could be better. I recently moved and wanted to be close to work but also close to a few friends. It would be cool if you could put in two (or more) locations and it would map out areas. I'm sure some ones would have popped up I didnt consider.
Yeah, it's a more generous explanation that they want to tap into the Chicago area talent pool. It's possibly true, a new office like this was no doubt planned years ago.
I believe USB5 is saying, given a ruling class that wants to rule, and a capitalist system, how would that ruling class rule? Cooperate control of the media seems like a good approach.
He just explained to you that there's no state in a comune. Therefore there can't be no such thing as a communist government. A communist country has no government.
You probably mean Marxist-Leninist "Communist" states. Those are centralised capitalist states, China, NK, etc. There a lot of explanations regarding why Marxist-Leninism only leads to a more centralised form of capitalism.
There is no real-world example of a communist country under that definition. It is purely hypothetical and never been successfully applied. We can speculate about literally anything. What's realistic?
>There is no real-world example of a communist country under that definition. It is purely hypothetical and never been successfully applied.
Communism is understood to be an ideal state (in the platonic sense of the word), it isn't meant to be achieved, more of a thought experiment or something to strive for.
>We can speculate about literally anything. What's realistic?
Socialism. Socialism is different from Communism, it isn't an utopia or an ideal.
The comment I was originally responding to implied that communism was a solution to the dangers of state surveillance and potential retaliation against a whistleblower like Snowden. Specifically, that this wouldn't even be a concern under communism. In my opinion it is unrealistic to assume that a nation will be able to self-govern without some governing organization that provides and enforces law in some form. I don't really understand what their point was when they said:
> In a commune, there isn't a state which can secretly surveil in the first place, making the issue a moot point.
But I assume they had some point beyond snarky posturing, and they envision some version of the world where this is true. To try and understand their point, and to better understand how their vision of the world differs from what we currently have, I was trying to get them to anchor their abstract point in concrete examples. I also wonder if there is an inherent contradiction or at least cognitive blind-spot in their thinking because every time communism has actually been tried in the real world, it has led to the most highly surveilled states, not the least. Again, just empirically speaking. We can have the "no true Scotsman", "communism has never really been tried" all day, but again we're leaving reality for untested hypothesis.
In that context, your reply that a theoretical communist country would not have a government is a bit irrelevant to my purpose, because that is again an entirely hypothetical proposition with no precedent in reality. So what is real and worth discussing?
I am aware of the difference between socialism and communism. I am aware of the many countries that have successfully organized themselves along broadly socialist lines (and I applaud them). But I think that still doesn't align with the original author's dismissive attitude as the presence, extent, and regulation of government surveillance is a topic that must still be addressed in those successful socialist countries. They still have a state that has the power to secretly surveil its citizens.
I will have to point out that different people have made different comments in this thread. No one mentioned Communism before, user b59831. Furthermore the OP, just pointed out that Capitalism leads to surveillance. Which is necessary in a system where the few rule over the many.
Alternatively, in a system with more democracy, like Socialism. Where there isn't vast amounts of inequality, the surveillance state would have a hard time to exists.
My response was not irrelevant as your question contained a contradiction which I pointed out.
Another thing I would like to point out, is that you are committing the "no true Scotsman"-fallacy-fallacy. The "no true Scotsman" fallacy occurs, if and only if, the other person never defines what is a true Scotsman. I can give you concrete definitions with no logical contradictions, whether or not you accept them, that's on you.
>I am aware of the difference between socialism and communism. I am aware of the many countries that have successfully organised themselves along broadly socialist lines (and I applaud them). But I think that still doesn't align with the original author's dismissive attitude as the presence, extent, and regulation of government surveillance is a topic that must still be addressed in those successful socialist countries. They still have a state that has the power to secretly surveil its citizens.
It seems like you are going by the definition of Socialism that is common in the United States. The definition that says Socialism is when the government does stuff and you probably think Scandinavian countries are Socialists. Those countries are not Socialists, they are Capitalists. There are no currently existing Socialists countries. Here the definition so you don't accuse me of being Scottish, Socialism is when the workers (not the government) own the means of production. The so-called democracy of the workplace.
Yes, but you could slightly amend their statement to say "Can you name a non-capitalist government..." to remove the false dichotomy and preserve the original point of the question, right?
Everything I ever saw points to rising real wages over spans larger than 20 years. e.g., https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N (there's quite the dip after 2008). Could you provide a source?
Note also that 1970 was a peak. Pick 1990 and things are going well.
Or as https://www.hamiltonproject.org/publication/economic-fact/th... puts it "After adjusting for inflation, wages are only 10 percent higher in 2017 than they were in 1973, with annual real wage growth just below 0.2 percent.1 The U.S. economy has experienced long-term real wage stagnation and a persistent lack of economic progress for many workers." with footnote 1 saying "Cumulative real wage growth is sensitive to the particular method of inflation adjustment. Some researchers use the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) deflator, which implies even lower real wage growth, or the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) deflator, which implies higher real wage growth (Bivens and Mishel 2015; Sacerdote 2017)."
> Starting in the late 1970s policymakers began dismantling all the policy bulwarks helping to ensure that typical workers’ wages grew with productivity. Excess unemployment was tolerated to keep any chance of inflation in check. Raises in the federal minimum wage became smaller and rarer. Labor law failed to keep pace with growing employer hostility toward unions. Tax rates on top incomes were lowered. And anti-worker deregulatory pushes—from the deregulation of the trucking and airline industries to the retreat of anti-trust policy to the dismantling of financial regulations and more—succeeded again and again.
50% wage share? I have heard that neoclassical economists still use 0.7 and when you tell them that this is wrong or doesn't work across countries (e.g. you've been cherry picking the data) they ignore you or treat you as some kind of crank.
I thought GDP wasn't a real measure? Are we selectively choosing when and if GDP is a real measure, but specifically only when it's beneficial to the side I am arguing for?
Yet if you take into account welfare payments and programs, total income growth has been large. If you make 20K a year, you get about 40K of additional government welfare. If you make 45k a year, you get zero.
For a vast number of Americans, increasing wage is a bad thing.
Regardless of which side of the political aisle one is on, this is one reason why UBI/a negative income tax should draw attention. I don’t know if it is the best solution, but it would empower those on welfare today by allowing them to direct their own funds, rather than infantilizing them by assuming “government knows best”. It would also prevent or mitigate the “welfare trap” and disincentivize abuse of the social welfare system, for instance people choosing not to work to receive benefits. The third benefit is it would be cheaper to administrate due to elimination of the smorgasbord of different welfare programs in existence today. Yet, here we are.
This only makes sense if UBI is implemented as an alternative to current welfare programs, but to the extent that is done, I agree that it would be far better, allowing individuals to prioritize between needs, or even invest in their future.
I also like the idea of one lump sum showing how much people are getting from the government. It puts it up front and center, and the public can clearly decide how much is reasonable.
Last, if UBI is paid for with taxes, there would be no cliff, as net benefit would gradually taper then go negative as income increased.
Agreed that it’s great from a transparency perspective. At the moment it is very complicated to track the value/cost of welfare. That makes it very easy for both sides to argue that it is too much or little - very few know what it is.
The problem, IMO, with most UBI studies I’ve seen is that they inject money from outside the system without funding the system via taxes. That makes their economic conclusions largely invalid, in my opinion. Their findings typically amount to “if we give some of our citizens free money that fell from the sky, they can afford more”.
We’ve had many technological advancements, but few touch on concrete problems that actually save time or reduce costs for individuals. I suspect the next few decades will have more impact in this regard than the last 50 years.
Full self driving might be an example in the near future that will measurably lift standards of living for many. More automation, AI and robotics are the key.
No tech will be available to lift the standard of living in the same way that a reliable health care and social system, affordable housing and reasonable work life balance can. Telling people “you can’t afford health care, housing or retirement but look at how great self driving cars and phones are” is just condescending talk by the upper class to distract from growing inequality.
Healthcare is largely tech. Housing is human technology . Retirement is just accumulated savings, which go further with less expensive goods and services.
Since everything you mention that we need more of is human technology, why are you so convinced that more technology will not benefit people?
I’m certain there was a point in history where everyone was largely equal with very very little. Was this better?
The same thing about housing that causes us to lose our minds. Under capitalism, investments (risky and otherwise) are commonly working people's only hope for a taste of freedom. If you don't like it, you have a friend in me.
