public investment to what end? that's what's not common sense at all. what form is the public investment? are we trying to create new industries? put everyone on social welfare?
To what end? To establish a healthy society where people are free to explore and take risks.
It’s not that complicated. Remove the risk of failure by giving people money for food, a place to live, an education, and protect their health.
There is a reason that many successful founders came from money. That kind acted as a safety net that allowed them to bet big. Not everyone with money goes on to establish a big business but the rate of success is far higher for those with money.
i think the shift will be from craftmens to trademens in regards to general software engineers, but these are type of writes up stem of a artisan style all to its own.
We have been seeing this shift for a while, where "software engineers" graduate from 3 month bootcamps. Except now most likely they will not be earning 500k making crud apps.
What about the incredible front end Devs that only know JS/CSS/HTML? They can still be true craftspeople in their art, be it cross-browser/platform issues or performance tweaking.
You can't expect consistently accurate reporting on Ireland, I certainly wouldn't expect it from the BBC Eamonn growing up during the tail end of the Troubles. ;)
> If you’re poor, nobody is giving you a car, insurance, parking, fuel, and maintenance for “fairness”.
Nobody is saying to give it to them. But fairness is that they have equal access to the roads. The idea that wealthy people have more access to public roads is really an abomination in the US.
You're free to suggest public transit, but they need to be free to make their own choices, completely disregarding what you - incredibly - think they should do.
If you’re concerned about fairness, look at what percentage of the 30th percentile income one needs to have a car to use those roads in the first place. If that was a serious argument, every highway would have first class pedestrian and bike infrastructure for the fifth of the population who can’t or don’t drive.
I find it conspicuous that your definition of fairness is letting other people subsidize your lifestyle. If you cared about fairness, paying for what you use is about as fair as it gets.
> If you cared about fairness, paying for what you use is about as fair as it gets.
Only in a libertarian fantasy where you only deserve, as a human being, what you personally pay for - even access to public roads! Should the wealthy have privileged access to everything? What about those wealthy people who pay no taxes?
We all are subsidized very heavily by our ancestors - consider the difference between a barren country devoid of all development and what you were born into. And more importantly, what humans have a right to, what is moral, etc. does not depend on money. Fairness isn't generally or primarily dependent on how much people spend.
Roads are public goods, built by everyone for everyone.
