Comments
-
@EatMyAss, while i agree that elon musk invests money back into businesses. Most businesses invest in machines that will put people out of work or do stock buybacks which will only enrich people that are already rich (note this does not create jobs). Also companies will give one time bonuses which were already planned, not permanent raises. I could go on but ultimately we are in a demand economy and for a demand economy to function people need to have purchasing power. How do you get more purchasing power? By giving people money that wont save it or put it back into the economy (aka the super rich). But this picture misses the point and is short sighted.
-
@Implicit88, it’s half and half in the manufacturing world. I work in a machine shop that has made parts for space x and in the aerospace industry there is no replacement for people. Maybe cheaper labor but to hold the tolerances for the parts requires experienced machinists, then quality to verify it, buying raw material from certified mills, processing houses for coating and paint, non destructive testing. There’s a lot of labor and services involved and money to pay for those for skills
-
@Implicit88, loading perspective sure but I mean really depends what a#you are among. One-off parts require special handling and custom crates to load manually by hand, forklift drivers, shipping personal to use packaging material. I think you are working in only one small area that has some automation, you can remove the human aspect of machining. What you can lose is work going to another shop out of state.
-
@Implicit88, couple questions. How many poor people have hired you? Are Machines not bought from another company that has to pay people to build the machines, who pay people to buy the materials, who pay people to mine the materials etc etc etc? If he did not invest in building something, and innovating, would any employees anywhere have gained anything?
-
@LeRon James, I work as a quality engineer in Los Angeles. Location is probably one of the bigger reasons why it’s hard to find machinists in general. California is expensive to live in and a bunch of them live out in the sticks to afford homes while traveling 30-40 miles for work. Also the next generation of machinists are slowing down as well.
-
@Implicit88, yes. We need to widen the tax base so everyone has a stake in the game. We keep the class-warfare going while the rich literally write the laws (through their bought and paid for senators) that keep their companies getting more and more power. Stop pretending that one side (R’s or D’s) are good and the other side is bad. They are both bad and you should hold them both accountable for every law they pass.
-
@Implicit88, it’s not about punishment. It’s economics. There are more people than jobs, and the real blame I place on corporate entities pushing consumerism this hard. But regardless of the cause, the only true solution to this problem would be to move to a post scarcity society, and we aren’t there yet.
-
@I Are Lebo, we could easily get to a post scarcity society if we truly wanted to but people will cry socialism. We could literally power the usa via renewable energy and battery storage (or other forms of energy storage). California on its own produces a load of food. However, a more near term solution would be to give people jobs using tax money. People are already receiving this money, so why not just require them to help out. In addition, we really need to increase buying power as that will create the most jobs since it will make all businesses need to hire to meet demand
-
@Implicit88, what you are describing is not post scarcity, it’s burdening one group with providing the sustenance for all. That’s fiefdom, not post scarcity or socialism. Post scarcity would be to have infinitely sustainable energy (wind and solar does not come anywhere near meeting the requirements) as well as a completely self running grow-op providing enough food to feed a surplus to every citizen. We have reached neither point. A lot of people bring up the point about the food wastage in the USA being able to solve famine overseas, but these people are not pragmatic. There is no viable cost effective way to transport this food.
-
I seriously despise these kind of self righteous, small minded, mental midgets who, always find it reprehensible that somebody would dare spend money on anything other than charity. They are only looking for someone pat them on the back for looking so concerned about the strife of others when in reality, they are simply envious that someone else has something they desire so much.
-
@killer memestar, everyone praises Elon but he has not shown the benefits of the reusable rockets. Yes impressive that he landed one but he has not actually reused any rocket meaning we cant trust him that it is reusable. Also there are downsides to reusable rockets such as reduced payload weight. Many of Elons other science projects will never be practical. He is just a guy spending lots of cash not doing much but building hype for many things that will never happen.
-
@big freedom, the engine was reused not the entire thing. Also they have not saved any money. NASA reused the space shuttle many times but the refurbishment cost out weighted the use. Although the flacon 9 is not as complex and will be easier to get back into order they still payed to much. We'll have to see how Elon makes a initial cost to save money down the road.
-
@Poland S T R O N G, omfg. You don’t understand anything about rocketry. The engine is the effing rocket. The space shuttle was payload that needed the rocket to get into orbit. Without it, it was just a cool looking plane. The ability to reuse the launch engine (rocket) completely changes the cost of launching payloads into space. Just because you don’t understand it, does not make it less valuable.
-
@J Boogie, Well it both does and doesn't. On most first flights for rockets there is a massive chance of exploding. Because of that the techies tend to avoid putting anything of value into the cargo holds. However you can't shoot a completely empty rocket, it will function differently, nor can you shoot it completely full, it costs far more fuel to test and leads to bigger explosions and debris. So, you go for a nice middle ground for testing cargo weight distribution reaction in the systems and in this case, toss in a car to massively drum up free publicity. That is how the car ends up 'soft' testing the payload capacity of a falcon heavy.
-
So... does the critic know where we can get supper cheap ROCKETS? I imagine they can be bought in bulk from 1 person who makes ROCKETS. Did I mention we’re dealing with ROCKETS? Space travel? An industry that requires paying for countless staff at different, expensive rates because you need to buy; materials, manufacture experimental parts, produce fuel, spend time (thus money, only calculations for testing experimental rockets). I’D SAY IT NOT ROCKET SCIENCE THAT THIS IS EXPENSIVE BUT IT ACTUALLY FVCKING IS!
And where do these economic geniuses think that $90B went? He didn’t burn it; he spent it! That means people got paid for products and services related to producing the rocket and making it go. He gave that money away to working class people in exchange for services hat he doesn’t even really need. Go sit on your sickle and hammer, commie scum.