Workplace Stress Is Literally Killing People; Mass Lawsuits Are Imminent

[Regina]

Both of these are very valid points. I think not many people realize (or are purposefully led astray from that conclusion by MSM) that the Middle East revolutions were all driven by poverty and not some sudden drive for freedom and human rights. The fact that the toppled regimes were all replaced by even worse ones should be a good enough evidence that something more basic/fundamental was at play. The US government was quick to claim credit for those revolutions but the people who lived there that I talked to all said the situation is dire and driven by hunger.
The point on Musk's ventures is also a very valid one. It seems that his ventures dwarf even the infamous Solyndra in terms of sucking taxpayer money like a black hole.
Can we wean Elon Musk off government support already?
"...Musk is, to be sure, an ideas man. Private, commercial space travel? Check. Washington to New York in less than half an hour in what he calls a “hyperloop” train that will travel at 800 miles per hour? Check. A new kind of tunneling engineering? Check. Solar energy? Check. Electric cars? Check, check. As wide-ranging as these various entrepreneurial ventures may be, they all have one thing in common – not a single one of them would get funding in a competitive private capital market if it weren’t for massive (and I do mean massive) taxpayer-funded government subsidies. A study published two years ago by The Los Angeles Times revealed that just three of Musk’s ventures – SolarCity Corp. (which manufactured and installed solar energy systems before its 2016 merger with Tesla Motors Inc.), Tesla Motors Inc. (which manufactures electric vehicles), and Space Exploration Technologies Corp., known as SpaceX (which builds rocket ships) – had received $4.9 billion in government subsidies to that point in time. By now, Musk’s various ventures have sucked well over $5 billion from government coffers. But granting literally billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to Musk’s firms isn’t the worst of it. No, that honorific is reserved for this little gem: In order to induce car buyers to spend their money on electric vehicles, the federal government offers a $7,500 rebate on the purchase price. Some states enhance that rebate with rebates of their own. In California, for instance, purchasers of electric vehicles get a state-funded rebate of $2,500 more. There’s a phrase for that – it’s called “crony capitalism.” And it stinks."

Speaking of government-funded scams and energy - you mentioned that the time to install solar panels in space on a mass scale was 10 years ago. What makes you think that this government-funded project would not have gone down just like the infamous Solyndra?
Solyndra - Wikipedia
What advantage does the placement in space of these reactors would provide? Beaming that energy back to Earth is probably still not feasible on a mass enough scale to support a nation.

Couple of things that may change the assessment a bit. First, there is always the option of going back to nuclear energy if the situation becomes dire enough. I doubt the concerns about environment or radiation poisoning will bother anybody if hunger starts looming closer.
Second, the US government can (and has repeatedly done so in the past) wage wars abroad to continue the energy flow to US for a long time to come. You already alluded to that in your previous posts, but the wars since 2000 in Iraq, Syria, and the meddling in Venezuela shows that it can be done selectively on oil-rich countries with little political repercussion even if it is blatantly obvious that it is being done for energy source control reasons. Aside from (maybe) Russia, pretty much any other energy source rich country on this planet (including Canada) can easily be declared an "enemy" and appropriated. So, it seems the US government has quite a bit of (military) leverage to keep the standard of living here higher than in most other nations.
Finally, you said that the current immigration policy is insane. Then why is it being pushed? Nobody is that crazy at the national level. So, the other option is it is being promoted on purpose, but to whose benefit?

Yep. Elon Musk’s Boring Company selected to compete for O’Hare express project

 

[Wagner83]

I think open office craziness came about to keep people off of the internet.

I'd say it's probably worse than that, everyone controls each other, may tell the boss X rubbed one out for 2mn on Monday, or even if nobody says anything, people controlling each other all the time keep them on their toes and more productive (stress, fear, competition). You also see the other working and it encourages/forces you to do more (even more so combined with monthly rewards etc..). It's a bit of a dream to have people control each other. I guess it depends on the size of the office too, because a smaller office could have different results.

 

[Tarmander]

I'd say it's probably worse than that, everyone controls each other, may tell the boss X rubbed one out for 2mn on Monday, or even if nobody says anything, people controlling each other all the time keep them on their toes and more productive (stress, fear, competition). You also see the other working and it encourages/forces you to do more (even more so combined with monthly rewards etc..). It's a bit of a dream to have people control each other. I guess it depends on the size of the office too, because a smaller office could have different results.

This is why a culture of speaking the truth can be so important. Sometimes these controlling situations can be moved in a positive direction simply by someone pointing out a situation: "does anyone else feel like they are spinning their wheels in a hurry up and wait environment?" Just something like that can be so useful if the culture as a whole values it. That kind of needs to come from the top though or it can lead to "destroy the one who speaks out!"

 

[Regina]

This is why a culture of speaking the truth can be so important. Sometimes these controlling situations can be moved in a positive direction simply by someone pointing out a situation: "does anyone else feel like they are spinning their wheels in a hurry up and wait environment?" Just something like that can be so useful if the culture as a whole values it. That kind of needs to come from the top though or it can lead to "destroy the one who speaks out!"

Your last sentence has been my observation across vast milieu. If we just pathologize descent, we won't have any problems.

 

[CarbAppreciator]

SpaceX is essentially a taxpayer funded scam, same as the rest of Musk's ventures. Their launch costs are not competitive with Chinese and Indian launchers and have no clear potential to ever be. The big question in my mind is whether Musk eventually winds up in jail or not. Every venture he's involved in is a big mess of accounting problems and tax subsidies that will eventually blow up.

The point on Musk's ventures is also a very valid one. It seems that his ventures dwarf even the infamous Solyndra in terms of sucking taxpayer money like a black hole.

Lol solyndra is a classic case of corruption, but just because Musk has gotten in line for gov't handouts, like any large corporation does these days, doesn't discount the progress that his companies are forcing on society. Yes solyndra was a black hole, not spacex, tesla, or solar city, they are fundamentally solid companies.

I believe in Adam Smith's invisible hand, but at the same time, I support the Import Export Bank's subsidies for Spacex, it is only fair considering the massive subsidies given by other countries, namely France for the Ariane5. Its the same principal as passing teriffs to counter China and the EU's aggregious teriffs.

 

[CarbAppreciator]

not competitive with Chinese and Indian launchers and have no clear potential to ever be.

I don't agree with almost everything you've said in this thread, but this is just demonstrably false.

 

[mr_mercer]

there is always the option of going back to nuclear energy if the situation becomes dire enough.

People don't realize that we're over half way through the reasonably gotten uranium. When uranium reactors were spun up in the 60s everyone talked about it as a temporary bridge to fusion reactors, understanding that there isn't really all that much easily refined uranium.

Our energy consumption profile is, if I recall correctly, 85+% hydrocarbon. As that consumption drops it is simply impossible to double and triple uranium reactors to compensate. There's not enough. Thorium may be viable but it's certainly odd that nobody has seriously built such a reactor in the 60 years we've known that to be an option.

Space solar works on paper. The panels soak up gobs of energy and you beam it to earth with microwave lasers. Whether it really works or not can be measured by cash flows. With forthright accounting such a venture either makes money or loses money. Cash flow is a very good proxy for energy in our economy. Credit growth, over the long run, is a good proxy for energy.

 

[mr_mercer]

I think open office craziness came about to keep people off of the internet.

I've had mostly positive experiences with open office environments in highly collaborative environments. Impromptu rap sessions where great ideas about what to do spring up as people overhear topics. Institutional knowledge at any organization is mostly locked up in people's heads. If you're not a McDonald's employee you can't just look things up in the manual.

You kind of need a balance between time in a public mode and occasional times zoned-in with zero potential distractions.

 

[haidut]

Lol solyndra is a classic case of corruption, but just because Musk has gotten in line for gov't handouts, like any large corporation does these days, doesn't discount the progress that his companies are forcing on society. Yes solyndra was a black hole, not spacex, tesla, or solar city, they are fundamentally solid companies.

I believe in Adam Smith's invisible hand, but at the same time, I support the Import Export Bank's subsidies for Spacex, it is only fair considering the massive subsidies given by other countries, namely France for the Ariane5. Its the same principal as passing teriffs to counter China and the EU's aggregious teriffs.

Which one of Musk's ventures do you think represents game-changing ideas or technology? Electric cars were built back in the 1920s and were not pursued due to energy costs.
The example of France's subsidies for Ariane5 does not necessarily falsify the point that Musk gets taxpayer money for pushing non-competitive ideas. Ariane5 is a lot closer to a government project than Musk's ventures, which are supposed to turn profit. I don't think the goal of Ariane5 (if at all) is primarily profit.
I don't know that I agree with the decidedly Malthusian point of mr_mercer completely but his points on the revolutions in the Middle East and Musks ventures are hard to argue with. Did you know that at least 20% of Tesla's stock is shorted?
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/26/traders-are-betting-heavily-against-teslas-junk-bonds.html

So, Musk seems to have these interesting (but hardly groundbreaking) ideas to play with, but giving him government money before the feasibility of these ideas has been shown is a bit like bailing out the US automakers in the 2008/2009 crisis knowing rather well that the companies are really not competitive and incapable of turning profit without government intervention. I don't have a problem with government-funded projects for advanced science...but those should stay in the government (i.e. DARPA) and then licensed out to private companies if needed. This corrupt government partnership with for-profit companies with not much accountability to anybody is historically not backed up by much success. If Elon thinks his ideas are really good he should be able to raise all the money he needs from private investors. After he proves they are viable then I am all for government offering subsidies to support homegrown technological innovation stemming from his ideas.

 

[x-ray peat]

The ghost of Thomas Malthus is alive an well on this thread. He was just as wrong 200 years ago about people using up the Earth's resources as the Peak Oil doom and gloomers are today. As pointed out above, population will rise, peak and fall without any need to pursue a depopulation agenda. The Earth has enough resources for everyone.

Just looking at oil for example, the truth is that many large discoveries of oil are kept hidden from the public. The market for oil is about as real as the market for diamonds; both controlled by a cartel to reduce supply.

 

[haidut]

Cash flow is a very good proxy for energy in our economy. Credit growth, over the long run, is a good proxy for energy

So both cash flow and credit/leverage are good proxies for energy? I thought you said hyper leveraged situations like Exxon/BP are not feasible.

 

[InChristAlone]

@haidut I feel like the main problem of current workspaces is that they are designed as being an "open office".

The Open Office is Naked from Theo Compernolle talks about this in great detail with a lot of scientific references.
But tldr, the following three factors give a chronic increase of stress hormones:

• the constant noise of people talking next to you (or worse, having a phone call) while you are trying to focus
• the lack of privacy and boundaries
• the lack of places to take a good break and relax

Personally, I work in an open office.
Which kind of sucks, but I try to make the best of it, until I one day have my own company.

I use is noise cancelling headphones with white noise and I take a lot of breaks now.
At least 5 minutes per hour.
This helps me personally a lot.

For me a good break is one without any stimuli, and with a lot of privacy.
Taking a walk outside, or doing meditation at the toilet are often the only options I have.
But it is better than nothing I guess.

You just described public school as well. Except there is no taking a break there.

 

[haidut]

The ghost of Thomas Malthus is alive an well on this thread. He was just as wrong 200 years ago about people using up the Earth's resources as the Peak Oil doom and gloomers are today. As pointed out above, population will rise, peak and fall without any need to pursue a depopulation agenda. The Earth has enough resources for everyone.

Just looking at oil for example, the truth is that many large discoveries of oil are kept hidden from the public. The market for oil is about as real as the market for diamonds; both controlled by a cartel to reduce supply.

Interestingly, I saw an article about this just a few days ago. Talk about "synchronicity" (Synchronicity - Wikipedia), again
If world fertility is indeed falling rapidly maybe the population control (if there ever was such a "black" project) did work.
The Population Bomb Has Been Defused

Hey, @mr_mercer care to comment on the Bloomberg article? Do you think this population growth drop is not enough to avert a crisis?

 

[mr_mercer]

So both cash flow and credit/leverage are good proxies for energy? I thought you said hyper leveraged situations like Exxon/BP are not feasible.

The issue with the western oil majors is they are down to eating their seed corn, so to speak. They are in fact yielding energy. They slashed their exploration budgets years ago because they stopped finding anything viable. I don't think the oil majors are all that highly leveraged, they're just doomed in a matter of some years.

 

[mr_mercer]

Malthus gets a really bad rap. He mostly enunciated important truisms that people still fail to grasp, not impending prophesies of doom. We are made of food. Food is the limiting factor on the number of people. Food production can never continue to grow geometrically.

I see no way the current global population can be supported by dwindling cheap energy in the decades ahead. The other issue is massive ecological degradation. Fish stocks, topsoil, even airborne insect counts are crashing.

People don't get the energy problems explain what is happening *now*. What has happened since 2000 (and before that). The 1930s great depression was in large part due to the depletion of high grade anthracite coal reserves, before oil and the refinement of the diesel engine provided substitutes. Then WWII was mostly a scramble for oil. We don't have until 2100 to figure out some safe landing scenario.

 

[mr_mercer]

you said that the current immigration policy is insane. Then why is it being pushed?

The democrat party needs voters and the republican party donors need cheap labor. People don't realize that the Democrat party basically peaked out in the 1940s and has been in a long secular decline since then. Only immigration has kept it viable. Absent immigration from the 1965 immigration act the political parties in the USA would have fractured and reformed along very different lines.

I think the other dynamic is that a lot of high up people understand the relatively bleak future and this is why politics over the last 25 years has turned from win-win to "sweep every crumb off the table into my pocket" [1]. There's a clued in elite that wants to turn as much middle class wealth into their wealth as possible before the jig is up, so they're better positioned when times are tough. Importing more consumers and labor is not at odds with that if you are an elite.

[1] Contrast the prosecutions and crack down after the savings and loan crisis to what happened in the wake of the 2008 crisis, where effectively nobody went to jail.

 

[x-ray peat]

Malthus gets a really bad rap. He mostly enunciated important truisms that people still fail to grasp, not impending prophesies of doom. We are made of food. Food is the limiting factor on the number of people. Food production can never continue to grow geometrically.

I see no way the current global population can be supported by dwindling cheap energy in the decades ahead. The other issue is massive ecological degradation. Fish stocks, topsoil, even airborne insect counts are crashing.

People don't get the energy problems explain what is happening *now*. What has happened since 2000 (and before that). The 1930s great depression was in large part due to the depletion of high grade anthracite coal reserves, before oil and the refinement of the diesel engine provided substitutes. Then WWII was mostly a scramble for oil. We don't have until 2100 to figure out some safe landing scenario.

That’s an interesting and unique take on Malthus but I don’t think altogether correct. His arguments and economic analyses consisted of far more than just “truisms.” Regardless he like many others after him failed to anticipate the industrial revolution and the rapid advances in technology that would obviate his predictions of a declining standard of living due to population growth. He also failed to anticipate that at a certain point increased societal wealth leads to a reduction in population as opposed to the increases he witnessed as @haidut's article points out.

It’s very easy to get caught up in the environmental catastrophism that is so heavily promoted today but the truth is that the world’s environmental problems are not as dire as you make out to be.

 

[CarbAppreciator]

Food production can never continue to grow geometrically.

I see no way the current global population can be supported by dwindling cheap energy in the decades ahead. The other issue is massive ecological degradation. Fish stocks, topsoil, even airborne insect counts are crashing

You're very pessimistic about the future, you seem hung up on the idea of limited resources. The truth is we haven't scratched the surface of exploiting the energy/resources of this planet yet, let alone the solar system. Given our technology, we can create new arable land with green houses and seasteading... there's always another technological solution to our resource problems, the menace to humanity is our cultural/political forces.

 

[x-ray peat]

the menace to humanity is our cultural/political forces.

precisely, and not surprisingly it is they who wish to force us back to the dark ages in an effort to "save us" from ourselves; the myth of man made global warming being exhibit number 1.

 

[mr_mercer]

there's always another technological solution to our resource problems

This is some Jiminy Cricket thinking. Wish hard enough...

Repeat after me: technology is not energy. Technology uses energy. We have found technologies to use more and more energy. To date the sources of energy discovered include: sun, wind (derivative of sun), fossil hydrocarbons, and nuclear (and geothermal, which is harnessing natural nuclear decay in earth). Nobody has come up with anything else and there is no obvious path at all to massively increasing utilization of the aforementioned sources. If you have some bright idea you better hurry up and get at it.