Adding more and more techno-ignorant laws will be introduced because politicians want to be seen to be doing something while not disrupting business interests.
If they actually wanted working changes the solution need to hit the money/content cycle of advertisers. here is the start of an idea: make it illegal to show ads unsuitable for children before 2100. we used to have laws like this banning tobacco, alcohol, etc. on TV and radio. They worked to slow the indoctrination. They have not been updated to include prescription drugs, gambling, etc online. This is technically already info used to target, does not require age verification, and actually points the algorithms to content that matches ads that can be shown.
Lots of interest comments on the efficiency of building homes.
The bigger issue is the cost of land. The differential for land to build is often 10:1.
So even if the prefab shave 10-20% the price for a custom build, it's still not making much of a difference for the normal buyer.
unless a develop or government was opening up mutiple parcels of land well below the costs to build a house, prefab is not really going to be worth it.
If the land cost is 10:1 then chances are that is a lot ripe for townhomes/apartments. Desirable single home plots in the suburbs of my mid sized city are like 1:3 with the cheapest new builds from a local builder.
Trailer parks are a thing that does exist; you can even often find an available slot in one. It turns out that most people don't want to live in a highly-dense area with mass-manufactured housing.
yep, and that's what we see a lot of round here. this is still not driving pre-fab adoption. ie, a single family dwelling selling for $3m, knocked down and replaced with 8x apartments sold for $750k. no interest doing a prefab single family dwelling at any price.
Right but that margin is tight!? Total rev of $6m, entry cost before anything built of $3m. $3m to play with. 8 units selling for $750k and you want to build them for under $300k a piece? Tight.
US automakers typically spend more per car on advertising than they spend on labor to build. Labor costs are often under 15% of total cost depending on the model. So even if they paid workers 50% more than today's wages, the cost of the car would "balloon" less than dealer markup.
Unions are not making American cars uncompetitive.
At a national and global scale, farmers moved to the cities to get work in factories operating the new machinery of industrialisation. And some were, or their children were, educated to become clerks based on a systemic development of education, ie RWr+aR. These clerks were critical to help account for all the widgets being created by industrialisation.
Point being, it was not accidental what happened to farmers during industrialisation of food production. they had a path. they were not left with nothing. so back to you. what next for out of work drivers or their children?
It's easy, at this distance, to look back and see that a large number of former farmers were able to find work in the new industrial factories and the like, and to simply ignore the fact that many of them did not.
Many of them saw their income dry up, and failed to pay back the loans they had taken out in the spring to be able to plant, and had their farms repossessed.
Many died.
Without some kind of comprehensive, structured program to provide jobs and/or retraining to people being put out of work by a major technological advancement, yes, some of those people are still going to do OK, but many if not most will struggle, suffer, and die. And right now, the government is actively slashing and burning structured programs to help people.
So I'd say the burden of proof lies on those who posit that "something will happen" to ensure that truckers being put out of work by self-driving trucks aren't just left destitute.
We are in agreement with the burden. Perhaps my point was not well made:
At the time farmers were being made destitute by industrialization we also invented the modern education system. This was a massive societal investment to compensate for the reduced number of farmers needed.
There needs to be a similar level of commitment to establishing a viable future for those displaced by AI. So see no indication that this investment will happen.
If they actually wanted working changes the solution need to hit the money/content cycle of advertisers. here is the start of an idea: make it illegal to show ads unsuitable for children before 2100. we used to have laws like this banning tobacco, alcohol, etc. on TV and radio. They worked to slow the indoctrination. They have not been updated to include prescription drugs, gambling, etc online. This is technically already info used to target, does not require age verification, and actually points the algorithms to content that matches ads that can be shown.