Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Physical therapists these days need to go get PhDs. It's the standard. And it's getting ridiculous.

You mean to get a job? That's because there is are way toooo many- it was the "easy" way into medical. As an oldish guy who runs, trust me, I know PT- I have never been exposed to any other profession that is so full of hacks. Once I found a good PT I followed him everywhere, but I bet I went through 10 before finding him.

I look back on engineering school and I remember my cleanest realization- I got a 65% on a test and it translated to class average, a B+. For awhile I was afraid of driving on bridges, realizing a "good" engineer is wrong 1/3 of the time. Then I realized the same math probably applies to doctors AND engineers at least work with a group, no one is second guessing the doctor.

Research dollars, allocations for education from the state, general government funding is harder and harder to come by. Living in a "business friendly" state means that we struggle to come up with revenue to pay for K-12, let alone help out our institutions of higher education.

Sometimes standing on the grand entrance to some massive federal courthouse I wonder what this will all look like in 50 years. Unless something major changes how can the US Gov ever build stuff like this again?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

For a true NYer you really don’t know how to cross streets.

It’s not so different from crossing the street in Manhattan. Substitute scooters for Citibikes. You dash out when there’s space.

Bangkok is not like Manhattan, or Queens, or even Brooklyn- I think the equivalent is to crossing the road in the Bronx?

Conf to Icky: I remember being in a tok-tok (sp?) on say a 8 lane highway- four going North and 4 south (they're metric, right? what is the metric equivalent of N/S? Anyone still talking to Penske?) And the highway is packed- then suddenly the lane going the opposite way was empty: vehicles going the way we're going just take it. now there are 5 going our way and 3 the other way. I wonder if it would flip to 6/2 but didn't see that. that place is crazy- in Singapore people would get whipped for that shit!

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Why the fuck aren't we talking about this national emergency bullshit.

We're suddenly a 1960s style banana republic. Fuck it, do two bit Latin American dictators even declare states of emergency any more?

I think it's still part of the initiation, yes.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Sometimes standing on the grand entrance to some massive federal courthouse I wonder what this will all look like in 50 years. Unless something major changes how can the US Gov ever build stuff like this again?

Two ways I can see:

War occurs and we wind up on top once more, controlling global economy and sucking all the money out of it like we did after WWII. Unlikely.

Private money is put to use to build these things, as is done in Europe. Also unlikely because we're too addicted to the idea that all such projects require exclusively public money, which means large tax increases.

But also ask this question: Why do we need these grand edifices? Why do we need skyscrapers? Why so much commercial r/e at all? We're interconnected as though we're standing next to each other by a little device that sits in our pockets. Why waste so many natural resources building structures we don't need? Why not just focus on the essential infrastructure (bridges, roads, dams, water treatment plants, sewer systems, airports, train lines, etc.)?

There's a giant set of Comcast buildings in downtown Philly. Ugly as fuck testaments to the Roberts' families' egos. Carbon footprint is staggering. Why? And why two? Was one giant phallus (a lot of which is wasted empty space, btw) that'll be ripped down in 80 years not enough?

California can't justify high speed rail, but all across this nation we're putting up office buildings for workers who increasingly work from home? For what reason? So more people can wreck the environment commuting to some plastic chair in an office suite constructed of petroleum based products?

AOC's Green New Deal is pie in the sky, but she has a point on air travel, car travel, and office buildings. Why not think big again and develop high speed rail to criss-cross the country, and upgrade the regular rail we already have? Not only is this environmentally friendly, but it would also help the dying hamlets in flyoverland. Create some jobs for the people who'd otherwise expire in opioid dens.

In 50 years, if people still have to "show up at the office" and do anything close to a 40 hour work week, we'll have totally lost any hope of realizing the benefits of technology Keynes envisioned. And we'll have certainly proven the axiom that natural selection does not favor the smartest or fittest, and evolution does not improve the human race, but can actually degrade the shit out of it... If the right dumb people remain in the right positions, supporting the same stupid policies -- most notably, The Protestant Work Ethic, the idea every minute you're not being productive is a minute of life wasted, and the notion every CEO should have the right to leave a Pyramid behind.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Two ways I can see:

War occurs and we wind up on top once more, controlling global economy and sucking all the money out of it like we did after WWII. Unlikely.

We have the money, we just need congress to do what it is supposed to do.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Why not just focus on the essential infrastructure (bridges, roads, dams, water treatment plants, sewer systems, airports, train lines, etc.)?

We don't build those things anymore either, and we won't unless and until we break the Reagan/Thatcher fever of believing government is always bad and inefficient and lower taxes are good in all instances. The basic notion that government can do things is, in this country, a radical socialist thought.

There's a giant set of Comcast buildings in downtown Philly. Ugly as fuck testaments to the Roberts' families' egos.

Complaining the about existence of private-funded buildings is weird.

Carbon footprint is staggering.

Carbon footprint is certainly vastly lower than the same square footage done in any other way.

Why not think big again and develop high speed rail to criss-cross the country, and upgrade the regular rail we already have?

I'm a huge believer in rail, but not even I think it will work to criss-cross the country. It's too big and too empty.

But there are shorter, busier clusters where rail could mostly replace air travel if we were willing to build real high speed trains (like the rest of the developed world, ETA: except the UK). We aren't because it's "too expensive" and requires hard choices and Americans are in love with the "freedom" of cars.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

We have the money, we just need congress to do what it is supposed to do.

It's much too important that it all go to defence contractors and tax cuts for rich people.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Two ways I can see:

War occurs and we wind up on top once more, controlling global economy and sucking all the money out of it like we did after WWII. Unlikely.

Private money is put to use to build these things, as is done in Europe. Also unlikely because we're too addicted to the idea that all such projects require exclusively public money, which means large tax increases.

But also ask this question: Why do we need these grand edifices? Why do we need skyscrapers? Why so much commercial r/e at all? We're interconnected as though we're standing next to each other by a little device that sits in our pockets. Why waste so many natural resources building structures we don't need? Why not just focus on the essential infrastructure (bridges, roads, dams, water treatment plants, sewer systems, airports, train lines, etc.)?

There's a giant set of Comcast buildings in downtown Philly. Ugly as fuck testaments to the Roberts' families' egos. Carbon footprint is staggering. Why? And why two? Was one giant phallus (a lot of which is wasted empty space, btw) that'll be ripped down in 80 years not enough?

California can't justify high speed rail, but all across this nation we're putting up office buildings for workers who increasingly work from home? For what reason? So more people can wreck the environment commuting to some plastic chair in an office suite constructed of petroleum based products?

AOC's Green New Deal is pie in the sky, but she has a point on air travel, car travel, and office buildings. Why not think big again and develop high speed rail to criss-cross the country, and upgrade the regular rail we already have? Not only is this environmentally friendly, but it would also help the dying hamlets in flyoverland. Create some jobs for the people who'd otherwise expire in opioid dens.

In 50 years, if people still have to "show up at the office" and do anything close to a 40 hour work week, we'll have totally lost any hope of realizing the benefits of technology Keynes envisioned. And we'll have certainly proven the axiom that natural selection does not favor the smartest or fittest, and evolution does not improve the human race, but can actually degrade the shit out of it... If the right dumb people remain in the right positions, supporting the same stupid policies -- most notably, The Protestant Work Ethic, the idea every minute you're not being productive is a minute of life wasted, and the notion every CEO should have the right to leave a Pyramid behind.

Big buildings and good transit systems to get people to them are better for the environment than sprawl and congested highways.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'm a huge believer in rail, but not even I think it will work to criss-cross the country. It's too big and too empty.

But there are shorter, busier clusters where rail could mostly replace air travel if we were willing to build real high speed trains (like the rest of the developed world). We aren't because it's "too expensive" and requires hard choices and Americans are in love with the "freedom" of cars.

2. Amtrak Detroit to Chicago is a suckers game. It stops in 8 cities and is very unreliable as to arrival time.

But the other problem is that very few cities have mass transit once there. Once you get to Chicago's rail station you are fine. But once you get to Detroit? You need a car.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

2. Amtrak Detroit to Chicago is a suckers game. It stops in 8 cities and is very unreliable as to arrival time.

But the other problem is that very few cities have mass transit once there. Once you get to Chicago's rail station you are fine. But once you get to Detroit? You need a car.

That's the same whether you arrive in a plane or train, though, no?

It's pretty easy to look at a map and see Chicago as a hub of high speed connections.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

That's the same whether you arrive in a plane or train, though, no?

Fair point.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Big buildings and good transit systems to get people to them are better for the environment than sprawl and congested highways.

Explain the form of commuting with a lower carbon footprint than not commuting.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

We have the money, we just need congress to do what it is supposed to do.

You mean raise taxes significantly to pay for $3 trillion in infrastructure? Or just float it as stimulus? Or take it out of the gilded corporate welfare program known as the defense budget?

Where’s this money?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You mean raise taxes significantly to pay for $3 trillion in infrastructure? Or just float it as stimulus? Or take it out of the gilded corporate welfare program known as the defense budget?

All of the above.

Where’s this money?

You just answered that question.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

All of the above.

You just answered that question.

You realize all of those things are listed because they are unlikely to impossible in the current system, even allowing for Democratic control of all three branches.