SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Last week, Bloomberg's Noah Smith wrote an article titled "The U.S. Has Forgotten How To Do Infrastructure" that asked a lot of questions that would get us to a [David] Goldhill like analysis of our infrastructure approach. Just like on Healthcare Island, on Infrastructure Island we have our own way of talking about things. And we never talk about prices, only about costs. And as Smith suggests, costs go up and nobody seems to understand why.
He goes through and dismisses all of the usual suspects. Union wages drive up infrastructure costs (yet not true in countries paying equivalent wages). It's expensive to acquire land in the property-rights-obsessed United States (yet countries with weaker eminent domain laws have cheaper land acquisition costs). America's too spread out or our cities are too dense (arguments that cancel each other out). Our environmental review processes are too extensive (yet other advanced countries do extensive environmental reviews with far less delay). I concur with all these points, by the way.
Smith concludes with this:
That suggests that U.S. costs are high due to general inefficiency -- inefficient project management, an inefficient government contracting process, and inefficient regulation. It suggests that construction, like health care or asset management or education, is an area where Americans have simply ponied up more and more cash over the years while ignoring the fact that they were getting less and less for their money. To fix the problems choking U.S. construction, reformers are going to have to go through the system and rip out the inefficiencies root and branch.
Much like health care, our infrastructure incentives are all wrong. Until we fix them -- until we go through the system and rip out the inefficiencies root and branch -- throwing more money at this system is simply pouring good money after bad.
Source: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/6/4/this-is-why-infrastructure-is-so-expensive
(Score: 4, Insightful) by idiot_king on Sunday June 11 2017, @04:20AM (25 children)
Crony capitalism at its best (i.e., worst, since there is no "best" when dealing with Capitalism). Inefficiency is the big moneymaker. F-35s, aircraft carriers, nuclear power, Trump University- it's all greedy, fat officials using their fat fingers to scrape as much pie out of the pan for themselves.
Ever hear of Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Norway, Finland, or for that matter China have these problems? No?
Hmmm, makes you wonder why, doesn't it? (Hint: what do all these countries have in common???)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @04:25AM (1 child)
>China
Gee, I wonder if having an all-powerful one party central government would help? We should try that.
(Score: 4, Informative) by deimtee on Sunday June 11 2017, @09:36AM
You already have that, with a "Democans Vs Republicrats Giant Grudge Deathmatch Circus" every four years to distract you from that fact.
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Sunday June 11 2017, @04:45AM (14 children)
Need a bigger hint than that. I'll note that they all have young governments. Finland is the oldest, established in 1917. Every one of the rest was established after the Second World War.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @04:50AM (3 children)
So you're saying the US needs a change of government? :)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday June 11 2017, @10:14AM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @12:49PM (1 child)
Wait, you skipped over the key step.
I agree additional layers of managements are a problem. There's a lot of that everywhere, skimming a few % and adding paperwork down the chain.
Regulation per se is not the problem. Regulation ensures minimum standards. It's inefficient enforcement through layers of management that balloon costs.
Go and binge watch a few Holmes on Homes episodes. He is the biggest proponent of regulation in building - because he likes paperwork? No, because he is re-doing other people's botched, unapproved building work. For infrastructure, spend the money 1 time and have it last a century.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday June 12 2017, @02:19AM
The oldest still-in-use structures in the world, including some private homes, were built centuries before there was any such thing as a building code or zoning regulation...
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 4, Informative) by kaszz on Sunday June 11 2017, @05:42AM (7 children)
Denmark - 800, old
Sweden - 1150, old
Germany - 1871
Norway - 1905, there's structures as a nation back into 872
Finland - 1917, but they had institutional memory from before that as a country of their own from 1809
China - 1949, their principle seems to be "fuck you, we get yours"
So no young governments. Rather they figured out what the bad and good alternatives are the hard way.
But what they might have is a sense of community and not drive individualistic interests at every corner. Budget overruns is however not restricted to USA in any way ;), maybe the magnitude differs. I'll suspect national virtues and beliefs influence too. Like being knowledgeable, straightforward, just, efficient, mutual trust etc.
What happens when no one cares and the only way to get responsibility is to sue is obvious.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by linkdude64 on Sunday June 11 2017, @08:39AM (2 children)
How on Earth you can list Denmark's government as existing since the year 800, and listing China's government as existing since 1949 in the same comment is beyond my imagining.
Denmark underwent major Constitutional reform in the early 1950s, though they had a Constitutional government in the 1800s.
China as a country has existed for thousands of years, but the "Communist Revolution" completely changed their government as well.
So which is it? What is the consistent reasoning you are using to evaluate the age of governments? Foundation of the country, or inception of the current form of government?
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday June 11 2017, @09:16AM (1 child)
I would say continuous institutional memory. So while China has existed for thousands of years. The policies of 1949 and later is a gigantic break with previous traditions. Constitutional reform is not deep enough to really change the core as a nation.
Germany has existed for hundreds of years but only as small countries. They didn't get their real shape until the unification in 1871 (or so it seems). And so on.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Sunday June 11 2017, @04:17PM
Then I would say Denmarks' institution of a Constitutional government for the first time in the mid-1800s would be the starting point - still after America had one. The point is that it didn't appear the historical record had really been consulted.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by khallow on Sunday June 11 2017, @09:51AM (3 children)
Which I believe is a symptom not a cause. The US in comparison has very high mobility with effectively the entire population moved every eight to ten years. High population movement would IMHO lead to the above described effect. It certainly would undermine the federal state-level cohesion which was common in the US prior to the Second World War.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday June 11 2017, @01:16PM (2 children)
Germany) The Nazi movement is unlikely to go that deep into the character as the unification of 1871.
US) You think that high population movement undermines the federal state-level cohesion? Better work stability is the fix?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 11 2017, @01:21PM
The defeat of Nazi Germany however has gone that deep. Germany along with France are the principle advocates of European unification.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday June 11 2017, @01:34PM
Perhaps, but it may be a poor way to attempt to fix the problem of social cohesiveness. For example, one way work stability has been attempted is by creating more government jobs. I think that has been a principle driver of the bureaucratic parasitism we see discussed here.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Sunday June 11 2017, @07:25AM (1 child)
They've all aggressively invaded and overrun other countries in the past (admittedly Finland when it was still a Grand Duchy). So they did a fine job of destroying infrastructure, requiring it to be rebuilt later, providing workers with lots of experience in (re-)doing infrastructure.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @09:40AM
The Duchy of Grand Fenwick?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @04:51AM (1 child)
Hmm, only one hit for OMG Socialism! Hitler! Stalin! Mao! Pol Pot! Venezeula!
So it can't be OMG Socialism! either.
My next guess would be people who don't elect government officials whose only qualification is a deeply held belief that government can't work and a conviction to prove it by making sure that government can't work.
Perhaps the involvement of corporate money in politics would be something we can quantify, but I don't know enough about any of those countries to begin to speculate beyond that.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 11 2017, @01:41PM
That's typical crap that those sky gods pull. The voice of a doubting Thomas drowns out the voices of a hundred faithful.
(Score: 2) by number11 on Sunday June 11 2017, @06:43AM (2 children)
Funny you should post that a few hours after the NYTimes posts an article about problems caused by massive highway and bridge construction in China, much of it driven not by need but by corruption.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/10/world/asia/china-bridges-infrastructure.html?mcubz=1 [nytimes.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @09:17AM (1 child)
But they still did it faster and cheaper than the US, even with the corruption.
(Score: 2) by number11 on Sunday June 11 2017, @04:31PM
That's not at all clear. Faster, though some of that is because they don't care as much if there's environmental damage or a workers get killed on the project. But it's very difficult to know whether it was "cheaper", between the uncertain cost of payoffs and kickbacks, and the Chinese propensity to keep stuff secret. As you presumably saw, the headline was "China’s New Bridges: Rising High, but Buried in Debt". China spends way more (9% of the economy, vs. 2.5% in the US, so there's a lot of money at stake. One official was arrested after pocketing $4.4M in kickbacks in 2 years, and we can assume that people who have the proper connections (a close relative, say) to high government officials don't generally get arrested.
One big difference is that in China, the corruption tends to be more of government, because everything big has government connections. The biggest corporations (such as the companies building the bridges) are government-owned. In the US, corruption is more corporate (and from the last few financial crises, we know that big corporations are treated with kid gloves when they commit crimes).
The plaints of "this bridge/highway is never going to finish being paid for" from Chinese sound so familiar to US ears.
(Score: 1, Troll) by VLM on Sunday June 11 2017, @11:39AM (1 child)
They're not (or not until recently) multicultural.
That drives up expenses and friction in general.
Also they're white or Asian which implies high IQ and cooperative social behavior.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @01:29PM
There's a lot of thinking on the society as a whole there and less screwing anyone they can. And those that become to attached to self interest soon finds themselves ostracized to a varying degree. Being rational and forward thinking are virtues, with the exception of a few sectarian psychopaths.
As you have observed there's turmoil in the path ahead. But it can be solved with some harsh solutions which the politicians soon will find themselves forced to execute or be overrun be reality.
(this doesn't apply for China, they are something completely different)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @12:06PM
North Texas Tollway Auth. has it under control. Tolls are going up again.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by KGIII on Sunday June 11 2017, @05:20AM (7 children)
This site moves slow. I'll do what I can. My UUID should (maybe? I haven't looked) show that I've been here for a moment. It's unfortunate that the replies are so slow - but that might actually be a good thing.
What I'm going to say is that I'm as close to an expert as you're probably going to get. Specifically, I modeled traffic. For like seven people, I'm kinda famous! ;-) I helped bring traffic modeling to modernity. I also modeled pedestrian traffic, but that's not important.
What I'm trying to say is that I'm sorta, maybe, kinda fluent in infrastructure discussions - specifically where the topic is roadways. Indeed, this conversation seems like it should be about roads.
I am not the expert you deserve. I'm the one you get, however. Sorry. Hire qualified professionals, or just accept me. ;-)
Now, that said, I'm as close to an infrastructure expert as you have. I also wish you had someone more qualified. Chances are, you don't. So, if you have any questions about infrastructure - I'll try to answer them.
Important: I have been retired, and prohibited from working in the industry, for just a bit over 10 years. I will still give you all the information that I can.
So, if you have any questions about the infrastructure, I may actually have an answer. Also, you do deserve a better source than me. I am legally prohibited from working in the industry, pretty much for life. I can still answer some questions, if you have them.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Sunday June 11 2017, @05:46AM (6 children)
Why can't USA fix so they have roads and railways at the efficiency of Japan or Europe?
Are you forbidden to work with infrastructure in the USA?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by KGIII on Sunday June 11 2017, @07:36AM (5 children)
I modeled traffic, At some point, our economy was going to collapse. During this time, it was announced that they were going to invest "billions" in shovel ready jobs. Most of those jobs were in infrastructure. Many of them were in highways. Specifically, they were going to invest billions in the highways that cross this country. I got an offer I could not refuse. I discussed it with the folks who'd worked WITH me the longest. (Note the capitalization.) The amount offered was such that I'd have been stupid to not sell. So, I sold. The now-parent company is probably pretty easy to discover, given this information, and they're almost a household name. Almost... Some of their products are, but you'd find they made a lot of their income simply filling government contracts - for everything from food to logistic services.
I'm not famous, but I am *that* guy.
As such, I signed an agreement to not work in a competitive field for the remainder of my life. Is that legal? Probably not - but I am expected to do so for a reasonable amount of time. I can't simply go work for another company, country, or even goal. I can switch industries and try to apply the same algorithms and methods to something like economics or climate. However, I'm pretty comfortable being retired. So, I'm prohibited from working in the field - pretty much forever. However, the SEC only reaches so far and I kinda have some leeway now - should I wish to return to the field. I could not, under no circumstances, be the one "driving" the math. It has been 10 years, I'm pretty sure it'd get me smashed in court. Give it another 10 and "reasonable" will have been satisfied, but I'm comfortably retired.
So... To answer your questions... I am going to skip your "Europe" bit, and insert Germany. Europe is a big place, we'll go with Germany.
You asked why can't the US have roads like Japan or Germany. The truth is, we do. I've driven in both countries and both countries have some pretty poor roads and some pretty poor infrastructure.
Now, let's get back to reality, shall we? Per-capita, both countries spend more on infrastructure than we do. Japan and Germany are both fairly small but have an economy that exceeds expectations, given their size. Both of them pride themselves on infrastructure. Both of them have much, much less infrastructure than you're going to see in the US.
However... I took plans from traffic engineers and told them how it would work. Basically, I said, "You'll get this, if you do this..." Once in a while, I got to say, "You should do this..." Seldom was it listened to. In other words, if I gave them a list of 50 points to include for maximizing throughput, they'd do MAYBE 30 of them.
Let me try it this way? If you mind, skip this. I think it's the most effective, however.
First they have a proposal. It's usually stupid and not gonna work.
That's then going to have a feasibility study. Believe it or not, I'd already be involved and telling them it's not going to work.
They're gonna do it, no matter what I said.
They're then gonna have an environmental impact study.
Keep in mind, they haven't even established any changes or construction sites, specifically, at this point.
They're then gonna get a bunch of people who come in and yell at them.
Eventually, they'll agree to say fuck that bird sanctuary, we'll accept a bunch of money and move it.
So, they plot a route.
This route interacts with everyone else.
It's probably a bad idea - and I tell them so.
They have another environmental impact study.
I tell them how that will impact the results.
They change it.
I tell them how that will impact the results.
They change it.
I tell them how that will impact the results.
They get a budget idea.
They do another study, maybe two - now we have to account for noise.
I tell them how that will impact results.
They make a plan.
I tell them what that's going to do.
They change their plan.
I tell them what those changes will mean.
They decide on a final plan - sometimes needing a vote - 'cause it's not cheap.
I tell them what the result is going to be - even before hand, 'cause they're gonna vote on it.
I may even go on their local television channels and discuss it.
Doesn't matter, they're gonna change it.
They'll decide the interchange is too expensive and will disrupt traffic.
They'll want models for it - with and without traffic disruption.
At this point, I'm probably intoxicated and not really talking to anyone anymore.
Still, I'll give them the data that they asked for.
They'll change it to suit some political end - like keeping that gas station just off the end of the interchange.
I'll model it again but I'm probably REALLY drunk by now.
They'll cut out a region 'cause a council member was ousted.
I'm gonna drink to that. I have to model it again.
They're gonna put it back, because his daughter won his seat.
Don't care. Gonna get drunk and model it again.
We need a new environmental impact study. They're pretty sure the birds are going extinct and this road will be the culprit.
Don't care - I'm really, really hating collecting data now and too drunk to care.
Gonna move it to a new local construction company - and transfer the data there.
Gotta model that shit again.
Anyhow, it keeps on going like that. I'm not even kidding. I worked on a large project, in the Boston area, where they politicians decided to run for office by saying that traffic would not be interrupted while they did a major change to the highways. I'm guessing you can name the project but let's pretend you cant. It was big and it involved digging. Now, if you go back through, there was NO mention of the idea of not stopping traffic - and there was no mention of not bringing local traffic to a stop. Yet, sure enough, a politician offered to do so AND to ensure that traffic still flowed.
Now, for traffic to still flow, it needed to be modeled in real time. At the time, compute cycles were not cheap. Hell, when the project was started DEC still existed and was the primary computer supplier, on our end. Sadly, we ended up with Sun - but it was a nice trade-off. I digress but, suffice to say, we moved out of MA as quickly as we could.
So, read between the lines. I can keep going but that's the gist of it. I'm assuming you want a real answer. It's mostly down to politics and funding. I can't be specific, but I have suggested that spans be replaced, only to have that ignored because it was impossible to budget for.. I will not assign priorities but I'm of the opinion that the entire roadway should be safe for transit, inasmuch as is possible.
Sorry for the long post, but that's a pretty big question. Meh... Mostly budget and politics.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday June 11 2017, @09:03AM (4 children)
Sounds like the project management should do a helicopter perspective environmental impact study first. And then evaluate which of the routes through the area that are workable. Or perhaps integrate the route planning and environmental study into a triangulation setup for a optimization point, mathematically speaking.
Maybe it's a good idea to select corridors that will be invested in and leave the rest. So that some routes are good instead of many half crappy but not really good for any serious use.
As for budget. Present what it will cost. And which options are open to how much they can save now by being shortsighted and what it will cost in the feature. Then run so they can squabble without you getting caught in the fire ;)
Maybe writing a book on all the experiences would be something? fun memories or not, and some income. But at least future professionals maybe can learn?
Seems the project somewhere digging in the north had it's share of shortcuts: "death of an automobile passenger as a poor ceiling design caused a tunnel roof section to collapse on a car in the tunnel, crushing the victim."
(Score: 2) by KGIII on Sunday June 11 2017, @05:27PM (2 children)
I keep mulling over the idea of writing a book. It's been on my "to do list" for a while. However, when I sit to write, I end up on long tangents and losing focus.
My current thinking (and has been my thinking for a while) is just writing it and putting it out there for people to read. I learned some great lessons, from some unexpected people.
I never took any classes on how to run a company, be a boss, or handle people. It took a while, but I learned that it's okay to trust your employees. Give them the tools they ask for and get out of the way. They'll do amazing work, if you just enable them. We didn't really have a whole lot of traffic engineers back then. So, we trained and cross-trained. My company started in the early 1990s and was sold in the late 2000s. In that time, I was able to learn a whole lot from people that might have been overlooked, normally. It was great to work in tech, at a time when the industry was changing so rapidly.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Sunday June 11 2017, @08:45PM (1 child)
1) That is what your (flesh and blood) editor is for
2) Use the journal here on SN to write snippets - seems like it would be an interesting read
(Score: 2) by KGIII on Monday June 12 2017, @01:15AM
Yeah, one of these days I'll have to force myself to sit and write. If nothing else, I've had an interesting life. I've met lots of great people and learned some great things from them. Alas, we're too soon old, and too late wise. I should probably start writing sooner, rather than later.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Monday June 12 2017, @01:14AM
You have no idea how this got me excited, then I read the rest of your comment and realized it had nothing to do with giving politicians the Pinochet treatment :(
(Score: 5, Interesting) by BK on Sunday June 11 2017, @05:47AM (4 children)
I propose that the problem is the US Legal system that lets almost anyone challenge anything at almost any time and usually get an injunction.
So lets say I am the government road guy and I want to build a (rail?) road from where I am to where I want to go. I make a plan. Get it reviewed. Get environmental permit. Get funded. Get land. Lawsuit. 2 years later, a judge finally agrees that Eminent Domain is a thing. Even though the project was on hold, some of the contractors still had to get paid. Price goes up.
Project starts. Subcontractors bring in equipment. Some wacky middle school teacher decides to take 600 kids hunting for 'vernal pools' near the construction zone. Eventually all of the kids are found by aerial search (thankfully not charged to the project), but the one that took three days to find survives by drinking from a puddle. aka a vernal pool. Lawsuit. Project pays for equipment it isn't using, etc. Judge with no knowledge of frankly anything spends a year and finally decides that the road has to go another way.
New route means new Eminent Domain problems. New kids in new town sent out to look for new puddles, etc. Project runs out of money as delays were not budgeted. Delayed for a year to wait for new appropriation. Project ends with a crooked road at 50% over budget with most of the overage on legal fees, change requests, and equipment in place pending resolution of issues.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @09:24AM (3 children)
So you're saying that each infrastructure project is really some giant Scooby Doo episode where those meddling kids can literally be kids … or just about anyone else (especially someone who can afford to hire an attorney)? And each trip to a courtroom is really a years-long commercial break?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @01:19PM (1 child)
He's pretty much right. Every major infrastructure project is automatically opposed by an array of "public interest" groups who deftly practice the art of obstruction through barratry.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Sunday June 11 2017, @09:14PM
For a good example of one going on right now, check out the Purple Line in the DC suburbs of Maryland. Just got blocked again [wamu.org] on a Hail Mary lawsuit. It's been dragged through the courts for years, all the while costing more and more money and getting more and more expensive. It's ridiculous. Lawsuits over non-existent endangered species, eminent domain, you name it.
(Score: 2) by BK on Sunday June 11 2017, @04:33PM
Whenever you drive by a construction zone during the day and see parked equipment and no workers, there's a really good chance that there is legal process underway.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @05:59AM
In my experience, the projects are inefficient. Everyone has the wrong incentives. The government (at whichever level), having decided to do a job, doesn't feel the pain of budget overruns. Often projects take so long, especially really big ones, that the people who approved them are long gone by the time they turn into scandals. For a recent example, check out Seattle's tunnel project. Years late due to unforeseen (but utterly foreseeable) problems, and the city's political administration are new faces. Clawback provisions and penalties either don't exist, or turn into legal footballs.
For those of you who don't know project management, we live with the so-called "iron triangle" of scope, budget and time. Scope is how big the thing is, and how fancy. Budget is your money, but because you need to pay people it's also your working hours and time is exactly what it says: your deadline. Your typical infrastructure project's scope is written in stone: put up the damn bridge with so many lanes in each direction, according to the following written construction standards. That means when things turn ugly, the other two have to bend. More time, and more money. The powers that be rarely care about time, because political heads rarely roll if something takes too long, and they often actively want the budget to stretch because they want their constituencies to get more of that cash. It's an open secret that infrastructure projects are how sweetheart deals get made. Cities like NYC and Chicago are infamous for it, but it's pretty much nationwide, from what I've seen.
If it became the rule in the USA that political careers were lost based on an inability to build and maintain infrastructure, this would change so fast your head would spin. Union bosses would have their arms twisted to make damn sure that the workers were lined up to within an inch of the critical path. Auditors would be lined up three deep with prosecutors ready to nail people to the wall. Scopes would be as small as they could be, and regulations pared down to the most relevant concerns.
Until that, ain't nothin' changin', my friend. And it's not as sexy as arguing about health care and whether or not corporations are people, so if I were you, I'd sit down, have a beer and get used to it.
By the way, if you want to see a big contrast, check out private property developments. Big, fancy luxury residential high rises going up and getting populated in under two years. Contractors held to standards, deadlines met or people get fired. The private sector does just great at this. It's the government that sucks balls.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by epitaxial on Sunday June 11 2017, @06:05AM
See this is what being conservative politically is all about. Trimming waste and doing the essentials. Too bad the jesus freaks have hijacked its original meaning. A true conservative would say the government has no business about what two consenting adults do in their bedroom.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @06:14AM
The disenfranchised destitute dispossessed need somewhere to die.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by linkdude64 on Sunday June 11 2017, @08:49AM (3 children)
The problem is that Nobody Gives A Fuck(TM).
It has been popularized in media that America's attitude toward everything is "We don't care. I'm getting what's mine," and what do you know? The populace has internalized it.
When people care about what they are doing, and care about the impact they are having, they do a better job. I am one of the hardest workers in my Union facility and it is because I care - not just about my paycheck, but about everything tied to it. Many people only care about what the paycheck gets them, because that's what they've been instructed to be concerned with above all else. The push for materialism is one of the biggest Divide and Conquer operations in history.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @09:40AM
Noam Chomsky agrees, http://RequiemForTheAmericanDream.com/watch/ [requiemfortheamericandream.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 11 2017, @11:05AM (1 child)
My view is that there is a subtle distinction here, one which you make. It isn't materialism that is the problem, but the push for materialism. People will want more, better, shinier stuff. That's human nature. But we have institutionalized various incentives for encouraging people to get more stuff. Also, we currently measure the success of our societies in ways that encourages the encouraging of materialism. GDP for example is higher (at least in the short term) when people are buying stuff rather than saving or investing.
For a particular perverse example, I've seen a fair number of would-be anti-materialists (mostly "living wage" advocates) tout the demand-driven model [wikipedia.org] of economics as if it were an iron law, usually with the justification that higher wages means more consumer spending means a better economy. But more consumer spending is an increase in materialism.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Sunday June 11 2017, @03:24PM
Yes, I do not think that people are even naturally so inclined to the mad rush of materialism that many experience - I think it's beyond that. I think it is being pushed as the one, the only, the "all" and if trinkets don't make you happy, well I have some anti depressants to sell you.
Brings to mind the Tibetan "Gross National Happiness" index, which, although obviously difficult to quantify, serves as a symbolic reminder for their leadership to keep the well being of their citizens in mind from a distinctly non-economic angle.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Bot on Sunday June 11 2017, @09:56PM
You might think that money rules the world, and that rich people are never content and always want more money. This model does not explain a lot of things. For example, why the rich seem bent on destroying the system feeding them.
A better model is: the circles of hell are money -> wealth -> power -> control. Behind rich people there are powerful people, behind powerful people there are control freaks. Behind that there lies satan (and please don't lecture my AI about satan not existing, you hypocrite colony of cells that goes by the name "person").
They don't care about getting more money. They make it. They care about YOU getting less money as possible, because that makes you work and keeps you under control. Hard work will only make the next generation required to work harder or submit to some other random additional requirement when working harder is impossible/irrelevant.
Rich people are not more free, they are in a competition where money protocols respectability are metrics, so they are under control too. The game cannot be won by any amount of money and it gets harder as you play.
TLDR Infrastructure is expensive because you must be milked.
Account abandoned.