I've heard that a lot of medical conferences take advantage of the fact that doctors need to fulfill a quota of "professional development" every year, so they set themselves at very pleasant resort hotels.
When I was in grad school in SF, my Aunt who was a doctor (dermatologist) attended the annual dermatology conference there. She invited us out to dinner at several of the nicest restaurants in the city and we were treated to the full course experience, plus lots of nice wine.
At the end, all the doctors fought to pay the bill because it was a tax write-off (business expense? I don't know how professional doctors with practices account for these things). As a grad student in SF living on $25K/year it was quite an eye-opener.
GDP is not useful to measure how good an economy works. The core problem of GDP is that it does not account for usefulness of spending.
GDP also ignores volunteer work and other non market transactions, completely dismisses externalities for health and the environment, and also has no indication of the distribution of said wealth.
If you had a Rawlsian veil pulled over your eyes and someone said to you "You won't know how rich you will be in that society, but would you rather live in a top ten GDP per Capita country or a bottom ten?" I think we all know what we would reply.
Granted it might not be fine grained enough to distinguish between Number 4 and Number 5 on the list.
Might still be a useless indicator considering that many of the low GDP countries also rank badly in other indicators that are often taken into consideration more broadly, like quality of life indicies, corruption indices or just the Gini coefficient. Correlation does not mean causation
Part of the problem though is that people often try to use GDP (or GDP per capita) to compare within the top of the list. Like they try to draw conclusions about whether "Germany is doing better than Italy". It's true that big differences in GDP per capita can distinguish between really good and really bad places, but so can many other measures (like life expectancy or education expectancy). Plus, even on a coarse rubric GDP isn't perfect. I'm pretty sure I'd rather live in Spain than Qatar or Greenland. :-)
One point is that the things that have increased in cost are more heavily regulated/government controlled than the items that haven't.
I did hear an interesting quote from someone techy that said "If you punch a whole in a plasterboard wall, it is now cheaper to buy a TV to cover the hole than get someone to repair the plasterboard."
> One point is that the things that have increased in cost are more heavily regulated/government controlled than the items that haven't.
> I did hear an interesting quote from someone techy that said "If you punch a whole in a plasterboard wall, it is now cheaper to buy a TV to cover the hole than get someone to repair the plasterboard."
Isn't that Baumol's cost disease (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect), not regulation? As manufactured goods get cheaper, labor gets relatively expensive. The expensive part of patching a hole in a wall is not the materials, it's having a guy come and do that work. There's no opportunity for automation or economies of scale with having a guy come over to your house to deal with your specific situation, but there are tons of those in a factory.
An even cheaper way of covering the hole than a TV is to hang up a rough piece of drywall without competent installation.
Also, I'd be wary of quotes from "someone techy," tech people can be pretty shallow and stupid, and it's pretty obvious that whoever was said that quote was going for shock/cleverness and sacrificed truth and understanding.
He does have his head up his ass, so I wouldn't be surprised [1]. However, he doesn't really say anything close enough in either of the articles you linked.
[1] FFS, he really implies day care is expensive because regulation is preventing "technology [from] whipping through" the sector like it has in TV manufacturing. I don't want to live in his nightmare fantasy.
But in the spirit of deregulation and techno-utopianism, here's an idea to use technology to slash day care prices that's held back by evil government regulation: lock kids in padded rooms while their parents work. Maybe stick a TV on the wall playing Cocomelon. It requires no labor for supervision, and the kids can't get hurt because the room is padded. That's a "technological innovation" that will "push down prices while increasing quality," for certain definitions of "quality."
I’d need to see evidence of unreasonable regulatory burden pushing costs up. I take claims like this on a case by case basis because it’s rarely so linear.
Businesses always claim “regulation makes prices higher” but deregulation has not resulted in cheaper goods over time in aggregate. Consumer electronics seem to be a pricing exception and I think it’s largely automation and outsourced production as the regulations haven’t changed substantially in some time.
Yeah, I'm not aware of any regulation preventing new painters/drywallers from entering the market that would drive up costs.
This is a pretty straightforward example of the Baumol effect, where _anything_ bespoke (not manufactured) requiring a human is simply going to cost more. The materials for patching drywall/plaster are tiny, it's the cost of the person that is expensive because overall cost of living is rising. The cost of outsourced labor (which you can leverage when making a TV, but can't for local labor) also probably plays a role.
In fact, I bet you could find someone to fix the drywall/plaster much cheaper than the cost of a TV. You just won't like the quality of the work.
The most critical determinant of the cost of things is "do you absolutely have to do this in a Western country by people who are legally entitled to work there, and even worse, in or near a major city?"
I don't have references, but I suspect that the people working in the TV factory do not find that the TVs are cheaper than finding a local plasterer. The TVs can be easily imported to the West from somewhere cheaper. The labour cannot, and there's an entire regulatory infrastructure dedicated to keeping such labour expensive. So you see price rises in all the labour-intensive non-exportable industries; trades, healthcare, education, law enforcement, hospitality, and so on. While anything that can be put on a boat gets comparably cheaper.
(this is my variant on the Baumol Cost Disease argument, which is in the graph in the article already)
but I suspect that the people working in the TV factory do not find that the TVs are cheaper than finding a local plasterer
I wonder whether this is true of Tesla factories in the USA? If you have a very badly wrecked Tesla with some valuable salvageable parts, would it be cheaper to buy a new Tesla or to pay someone to replace the 80% of parts that need replacing.
I suspect the new one would be cheaper.
Automation and economies of scale matter, not just labour costs.
> I did hear an interesting quote from someone techy that said "If you punch a whole in a plasterboard wall, it is now cheaper to buy a TV to cover the hole than get someone to repair the plasterboard."
"One point is that the things that have increased in cost are more heavily regulated/government controlled than the items that haven't."
This is one of the central theories behind Kartik Gada's ATOM concept. He may come across as a bit of crank to some, but he has some interesting ideas.
The second to last bullet point on the post is about the Samsung client, which (as you are aware) has been written but is currently held up in review Samsung. The first round of review took about 3 months(?!), and they are working through reproducing the vaguely stated issues found in the review.
It is thankless work, but they are actually quite close!
Not the same person, but unfortunately one doesn't always have a choice. My wife is absolutely in love with the Samsung Frame TV, therefore we have one (much to my dismay).
reply