According to my basic understanding of basic economics (FWIW), doesn't this put a hole in the monopoly hypothesis here? [I'm not even close to being an economist, but I've taken a basic class or two.]
I looked at their 2017 financials, and they have revenue/ expenses broken out for many many brands and regions. There are huge variations in margins due to what it seems like to be growth expenses. Some of what i'd think to be more mature lines at first glance to have crazy good margins.
If there was healthy competition that same number of jobs may be split over multiple companies, but it would still have to exist since the market for the product itself wouldn't change.
That isn't an argument for not breaking up a monopoly. Only an argument that the market may be big enough to support actual competition.
What is being claimed is that the majority of those employees are not seeing an increased benefit (wages) proportional to the increased profits of the company they work for, whereas shareholders and executives do.
If it were multiple competing companies, the same output would probably require MORE employees. One of the ways it is so profitable is to implement economies of scale not possible in a less monolithic industry.
You are failing to see that extractive business models such as monopolies do not add value, they extract value and concentrate it in the hands of the execs/owners. This removes capital from the socio-economic system/society and reduces the capabilities of the whole system to grow (the occasional purchase of a yacht does not rebalance things).
Employing people at each step in the eyewear industry. Plus, employing people at companies who support the eyewear industry. Plus, employing people at companies that support the companies that support the eyewear industry...etc. etc.
Why would any of these jobs be lost in a more competitive eyewear industry? People keep repeating this talking point, but I don't understand what they mean.
Nobody is asking for the eyewear industry to stop existing. We're talking about a single monopoly controlling the majority and driving up prices.
How does an artificially high price and artificially low competition generate more jobs?
If that was the case, then there'd be no ability for something like Warby Parker or Costco to show how much cheaper it can be the way they do, and it would just be something that cost hundreds of dollars. Costs everybody has can't explain this. And even those costs can't really explain the differential here; 10% and 10x are very different beasts.
Honest question - football helmets have not changed that much in what, 25 years? Are there any efforts underway to use technology to improve the protection provided by helmets? What about a softer layer outside the hard plastic. What about crumple zones for lack of a better term - that means helmets are designed to absorb one large hit, then be replaced. I am sure there are studies underway, but seems like an area ripe for "disruption"...
The problem is, CTE is not caused by "one large hit"; it is caused by repeated, sub-concussive blows. If you had something collapse on the blows that cause it, you'd be changing helmets after just about every tackle.
There are newer helmet technologies that are supposed to absorb more of the impact, and in particular allow some slippage of the shell to reduce rotation, which can be one of the most harmful types of movement:
My understanding is the brain slams against the inside of the skull due to stopping fast. Wouldn't a crumple zone (again for lack of better term) allow for a slower transition and thus less rattling around in the skull?
>the brain slams against the inside of the skull due to stopping fast
Yes, that's the inertia change I referenced.
A crumple zone is unlikely to mitigate the problem in any meaningful way. The problem is that in a hard collision, the head still stops in an instant, but the brain continues to travel at the same rate of speed until it slams into the skull. Effectively slowing the distance over which the head comes to a stop by a few millimeters or so won't meaningfully offset that impact. The brain is still traveling too fast.
The kind of design you're referencing works in vehicles because its purpose is to dissipate the energy of the collision around the zones instead of through the vehicle. But, the goal here is to avoid damaging the vehicle so extensively that the damage intrudes upon the cabin (and its occupant).
However, the vehicle's deceleration itself is not altered in any meaningful way by crumple zones. So, this system really only works if the driver is restrained (e.g. by a seat-belt). Otherwise, the driver would still bear the force of the sudden deceleration when she collided with whatever was on the other side of the empty space in front of her.
Similarly, if the brain could be restrained in its skull, then helmets might have at least some value in protecting it.
I'm skeptical. Many harmful impacts on the line happen with the facemask, and I see no changes there to reduce impacts.
The NFL has a long history of pointing to new technology that promises to make the game safer, but I have yet to see that manifest in reduced concussions. I'm also skeptical that increased cushioning wouldn't just let players hit each other at higher speeds.
Helmets have changed. They have better exterior material, the inside is inflatable to customize to individuals, the shell has flex like car panels, etc.
But CTE is about repeated impact, so most CTE cases now are from previous poor helmet designs, not from modern helmets.
Also because of the repeated nature, single impact helmets aren't the important ones. Linemen have the biggest problems and they aren't the ones getting laid out from thunderous impacts like a receiver.
To protect against those, modern helmets have stronger face masks and wider field of vision so a ball carrier can see it coming better. It is those blind hits that hurt.
I hope to see modern CTE rates come down from improved helmets but it will take a decade plus to see the results in the pros.
This is the most recent one I’ve seen: https://vicis.com/. Has some big name players on board, Russell Wilson I believe. I’m surprised the NFL isn’t highlighting this effort more. I imagine it has something to do with existing equipment agreements.
>Honest question - football helmets have not changed that much in what, 25 years? Are there any efforts underway to use technology to improve the protection provided by helmets? What about a softer layer outside the hard plastic. What about crumple zones for lack of a better term - that means helmets are designed to absorb one large hit, then be replaced. I am sure there are studies underway, but seems like an area ripe for "disruption"...
The very existence of hard plastic helmets is what has caused the issue in the first place. It creates enough protection that people are able to hit much, much harder than normal, which causes concussion/CTE. You can fix the game by getting rid of the pads.
Prior to pads players were dying. The problem is not the pads that make trauma survivable: the problem is that the sport is designed to inflict trauma when played as designed.
The NFL is testing a few different helmet types and devices designed to reduce head injuries this year. Some of the quarterbacks have different looking helmets, and a few players have a neck brace like thing too.
Excessive locality of solution is an engineering bad practice.
Think of the crash like a train... if the locomotive can't get traction to go fast, the passenger cars can't fly thru the air at 100 MPH in a derailment, can they? So eliminate shoe cleats. Maybe eliminate shoes and play barefoot on grass. If your feet literally can't accelerate you to 15 mph in one meters length, then you can't hit someone's head at 15 mph when you eventually get there.
There are other interesting rule peculiarities that have nothing to do with equipment. There seems no reason other than sheer display of aerobic conditioning to require wide receivers to line up on one side of a line an dash 50 yards downfield to get smashed into and killed by another guy dashing 50 yards as fast as he can trying to stop him. So change the rules so they don't run as fast as they can? Just let pass receivers stand around downfield, or let defensive backs line up there if they want. If you have to run 25 yards in three seconds to hit a guy catching a ball, someone is going to get killed. If you're lined up a foot away from the catcher, you don't need to kill him to get there in time. Sometimes the best improvement to equipment is to make it not used, in this manner.
Another strange rule change is you have to try to kill the wide receiver because running yards made after a catch count, although trying to kill the receiver before the pass is pass interference with a free down, so an interesting compromise is no running yards after a pass along with any tackling of a receiver an automatic pass interference 1st down or half the distance to the goal. Where the receiver's feet are located when the pass is complete is where the play ends, not where the receiver was tackled after an attempt at a run. This would tend to make the game immensely more exciting because there will be even more aerobic running downfield and more exciting interceptions, vs a tendency to tempt the defensive line into an illegal tackle via short passes.
Another strange rule is offensive and defensive lines symbolically fighting and pushing each other is acceptable, leading to a lot of physical damage. A rule as simple as you touch an opposing player you're both out of the play would be interesting to see. You don't have to hit a guy hard enough to kill him to get him out of the play, just merely touch him. Its easy to kill someone by trying to charge into them so hard you literally flip them over, but hard to kill someone by high-five-ing them as you pass by. I imagine you'd see some amazing dodgeball like madness as players try to remain untouched as late as possible in the play.
Or how about this. You can't move if you're holding the ball, and opposing players can't touch each other, ever. Instead of a tackle, count down a 10 second timer for the offense advancing the play.
Since we just made the whole game about passing without contact, 4 downs seems a bit too generous. Change possession whenever the offense fails to advance for whatever reason.
And 22 players on the field at once is just a bit much. So many variables. So cut that down to 7 players on each team.
And maybe to promote skillful passing, ditch that weird oblong ball and replace it with a flat plastic disk.
The problem is the human neck. Any amount of force and deceleration is still being born by the head, and the only way it can dissipate force is the relatively-fragile human neck.
This is probably the origins of the grand bascinet, where a knight's outer helmet were strapped to his chest: so the force could be dissipated. But they severely restricted movement and athleticism: you wouldn't be able to turn your head in a different direction than you are running to look for the ball, for example.
I think this may be the most obvious solution path, but probably not the right one to be thinking about.
I think it may be better to actually provide less protection and/or reduce designs that mitigate or otherwise disguise the immediate physical consequences of doing things like spearing another player head first.
Tangentially in the business. Two recent stories told to me:
1) Saw at Manheim Auto Auction (one of the largest) 300 Nissan Leafs run through the auction line in one afternoon ahead of some of our cars. Drop in "value" of leafs went down 10%+ in one day. All were recently off lease.
2) For similar reason, Santander is holding 4000+ cars on auction lots "waiting for pricing to stabilize". Reality is, when they run those cars through the auction, they will have to book the full losses. Say they anticipated 20% repossession rate and that they would get 80% on the dollar when auctioned on those losses. When they run them through now and get 50% on the dollar, their securitization pools will be creamed.
Leaf is a special case because of the battery degradation issues. 100k miles on a Leaf is basically end of life (unless you buy the $5k battery replacement). That being said, you can pick one up in California for $5k in perfect condition with <50k miles and ~75% of battery life remaining right now. When you factor in zero cost of maintenance and zero cost for fuel over a lifetime of 2-3 years, and HOV access, it's the single most perfectly designed commuter car to ever exist IMO. I just bought one last month and it's the best car I've ever owned. Having a bunch of free chargers nearby means my total monthly cost to commute ~20 miles a day is a $75 insurance payment.
Definitely a niche thing for heavy urban areas that have the charging infrastructure though. I can't imagine owning one in the Midwest.
Any advice on how to make sure you're getting a good one, or where to get one? We considered Leafs several years ago, but the range wasn't quite good enough for our needs.
Since then, our needs have decreased and range has increased a bit. Would love to trade in one of our 25 mpg vehicles for a Leaf. Plenty of chargers around Palo Alto, including at work!
Make sure the battery has at least 8 bars left. There's two gauges on the dash: current charge and battery capacity. Capacity is the skinnier one on the right [0]. If you find one still within the warranty window below 8 bars, Nissan will even replace the battery free [1]. Also make sure you get one with a quick charge port, it's worth every penny. Other than that you really can't go wrong.
Not an owner, but I think those two points work against each other a bit. How much, I'm not sure, but slower charging does preserve capacity. If you have no plans for long trips where you need to charge during a meal, and will always be charging overnight or while at work, batteries that haven't had to deal with faster charging could be better.
You're not wrong however all of the studies and research out there shows the degradation is hundreds or tenths of a percentage point. In other words it's insignificant.
* there's generations of Leafs, and later ones are better in terms of battery management
* there's a device you can buy and an iPhone app to get better, in-depth info from the battery on a car you intend to purchase
* It was high temperatures that were the achilles heel for early Leaf's so watch out if you live somewhere like Pheonix or if you suspect the car came from somewhere similar
* make sure to check out all the various rebates available for new leafs (from state, federal and utility companies, and group buy offers) to make a fair comparison with a used model.
75% battery life on a car that has a 90 mile range? Talk about range anxiety! I'm not sure who looks at those cars, but they sure don't use cars like I do.
I don't even commute and I can't imagine the stress of driving something like that.
In the Bay Area it's never really an issue because of quick charging. 30 minutes gets you an 80% charge from 0. When you realize that point-to-point the longest possible drive around here is ~40 miles, and there is guaranteed to be a quick charger within a few miles of your destination, it changes things. I admit it's a total mindset shift from driving an ICE but I love it.
I've heard stories over the years of "plausibly desirable car X is selling for around price $Y!" - yet when I look around a bit, prices are always much higher.
It's that the trading market is sufficiently thin that even a few hundred units of freshly off-lease vehicles will crash the price.
David Gerard makes a similar point of Bitcoin in Attach of the 50 Foot Blockhain -- that "market capitalisation" of crytpocurrencies is complete nonsense, due to market thinness. Rather, you want to look at total transaction volume. A large player can move the market significantly on a very small number of trades.
Price, it turns out, is far more like pressure than volume. Punch a large hole in something, and it falls rapidly. Squeeze it to a small point, and you can keep it quite high, but on very small total quantity.
I can confirm that used Leafs from the USA are very popular here in Kyiv. They sell for something around 18000 USD, are about three years old, and are said to have freshly replaced batteries (which may or may not be true).
As well as private owners, both places have a car club using them too [1] - I guess it’s possible the low value makes them more attractive for that use.
I mean does this really shock anyone? There are like no less than 20 used lots in my city alone (which is hardly a metro hub) all of which have probably at least a hundred used cars on the lot. And that's JUST the used dealership market, not even counting the new dealers, the private sellers, the rental places getting rid of cars, or anybody else I'm not thinking of.
There are actual quantifiable fuckloads of cars in the states. It's really a wonder there's enough customers to feed this industry at all, ability to pay the financing notwithstanding.
In 2012 there were actually less cars per capita in the US than many parts of Europe including Italy. The difference is that in the US, auto financing is ridiculously easy for purchase and lease, combined with the general financial irresponsibility of the population, you see a lot of new and expensive cars driven by people with below average incomes and they return the lease and get a new car every few years whereas in other countries people drive their cars into the ground.
The local CarMax may have auctions for the local "Mom & Pop" dealers - you won't be able to bid, but if you talked to a registered bidder ahead of time and told them what you are willing to pay (in cash) for a Leaf that day, they may bid on one for you. Point out that they won't have any lot insurance fees on it, since you'll be taking delivery immediately.
Yes that works pretty well. My wife wanted a specific model of used car several years ago so we told our regular mechanic (who has a dealer license) to find one in good condition at the local auction and bid up to a certain price. It was worth paying him for his time to attend the auction and filter out the cars with problems.
There are pretty massive subsidies on new Leafs now. $10k reduction by dealers as well as $7500 federal tax rebate (and potentially CA rebate if you are low income).
Manheim policy may vary across the world, but here in the UK they're open to private buyers on most lots.
My nearest auction house is Saltash, Plymouth and twice/weekly sales and upwards of 200 vehicles go through the books. It's quite something to see a car brought to the line, bid on and sold in 2 minutes.
Private buyers pay a larger commission per sale compared to bulk buyers, but hammer price is the same.
There's a twice-yearly plate change in the UK also, so in the coming weeks (from Sep 1) there will be a glut of used cars traded as part exchange for new vehicles.
Opening up the auction to private individuals doesn't bring more buyers, as the brokers are just middlemen -- all the cars they buy get passed on to end customers in a matter of weeks. It may bring more money, if people are willing to pay more to disintermediate the brokers.
However, this adds a lot of headache and risk for the auction operator - tons of uneducated customers who won't be able to pay, try to back out of bids, get pissed when the car has defects (auctions are typically as-is affairs), crowd the lot, etc.
However - if you see a car you want coming up, try asking a local broker to buy it for you for a flat fee, a few hundred bucks over the closing price. It's a guaranteed sale for them with no hassle ...
This is what I do. Friend of a friend is a dealer. He's at the auctions every other day. I just put in an order with him and he'll call me when he finds something good. I trust him. Having had a bad deal yet. Charges $400.
In CO you could get a Leaf for $8K with tax credits, at least until the end of June this year. There were tons of brand new ones on eBay going for ~$10K when I checked.
With UBI, you get money. You can spend it on whatever you need or want.
With "Universal Cars" you get a car. If you already had one, you probably need to sell one or the other. But now everyone has a car, so the resale value crashes to nearly scrap. If you keep it, you need to pay for insurance, maintenance, and actual usage, which may or may not be a net positive.
Let's suppose you don't already have a car. Why not? If you live in a city, you may not have a need for a car. Selling it won't help much. Parking may be impossible or too expensive. Perhaps you cannot drive a car. This car is going to be useless to you.
On the upside, it bolsters the car manufacturing industry. On the other hand, many mechanics will go out of business because it will be cheaper to get a different car than fix the one you have.
On the gripping hand, expect gigantic traffic jams, rising fuel prices, and soaring pollution levels.
"With UBI, you get money. You can spend it on whatever you need or want"
As long as you have a slave class doing the producing who are forced to take your money. Otherwise you just get inflation because you haven't added anything to the supply of production side.
If your mental model is based on a single self-sufficient town plus outlying farms that does no trading and never improves their technology, I can see how you would come to that conclusion.
