This would be like my suing the Internet because newspapers have gone under. Yes, it sucks when technology changes the business status quo, but you need to try to shift with the changes.
________________________________

Reminds me of what I like to say to the pro-natalists who insist that people in one First World country or another one need to breed babies that they just don't want or can't afford:

It was inevitable the automobile would be invented.

It was inevitable that, as a result, many, many businesses would be destroyed, along with the families that created them.

It was inevitable that many of those people would pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and learn new skills to avoid going homeless and hungry. Many, of course, went into the auto industry. In short, they accepted the idea of a new kind of economy, horribly painful though it was.

In the same vein, since good contraception methods have been pursued since biblical times, it was inevitable that we would have all the methods we do after several thousand years, and that women, especially, would make great use of them because they want to. Yes, this means we will have great economic problems. Maybe it’s time to develop a “sense of sacrifice” for the elderly, the poor, and the disabled, since we cannot continue relying on the traditional economic means to support them. (A lot more personal frugality would be a nice start, since that was the way of most of the world until the 20th century, according to David M. Tucker.) Many countries believe in putting the elderly first. Why don’t we?

In short, just because our economy is based on buying piles of things we don’t need, polluting, credit card debt, and not-so-wanted babies doesn’t mean it has to stay that way. Let’s consider other methods. Besides, free will being what it is, it’s foolish to expect your child to become another Albert Schweitzer when it could just as easily become a criminal and a waste of space, despite your best efforts.

_____________________________

And, here's a good 1977 column by Art Buchwald (it's also in his book "The Buchwald Stops Here"):

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2519&dat=19770426&id=dOZdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=G18NAAAAIBAJ&pg=2462,3691983

Excerpts:

"...it turns out even America is running out of fuel much faster than we ever dreamed it would. No one ever thought it would happen to the good guys. Son, I don't know how to tell you this, but...you will probably not be able to buy a large Cadillac."

My son bit his lip to keep from crying. "But you promised!" he cried...

..."Someday you're going to get married and have a wife and children."

"I remember you telling me that," my son replied. "And you said that if I worked hard and married, well, I could have a heated swimming pool."

"Well, son, you can still have the children, but by then I doubt if you can install the heated swimming pool."

"Why would I want kids if I can't have a heated swimming pool?...

...The next thing you're going to tell me is that when I grow up there won't be electric golf carts and I'll have to walk the entire eighteen holes."

@lenona: I fail to see the relevance of the Buchwald column. Yes, we're having to lower our expectations, but it isn't because of Peak Oil (which has yet to happen) but because of too much taxation and regulation, both of which can still be reversed.

I don't even know where to begin with that pile of crazy Lenona. The automobile was inevitable? The Europeans invented the steam engine in 1698. Which lead to the industrial revolution. But none of that was inevitable. Heck, the Romans invented a primitive steam engine, and for 1500 years nothings happened. If you can put off an innovation revolution for 1000 years that is close enough to forever for these cabbies. Your concept of the US economy is quite the distorted caricature. Your views on the elderly are unhinged. We spend 48% of our federal budget on the elderly. You claim we still aren't doing enough. Well, when will it be enough. 100%, 110%, what? And as Jdgalt points out article is gibberish too. We are in no way resource poor. Instead we are overly regulation rich. It is not that things can't be done, it's that the government won't let you.

"You don't need a professional license to drive carpool; you shouldn't need one to drive Uber."

So. What other commercial ventures do you advocate allowing to operate without inspection?

The cabbie should wait until the TPP goes into effect and maybe he can do what the corps will be able to do, sue for lost business due to governmental action.

Rad,

Most engineers are neither licensed or inspected. Some products gets licensed, but the vast majority do not. And as someone in the nuclear industry you should understand the issues with over regulation. If we could upgrade to newer nuclear technology there wouldn't be nearly as much radwaste.

Ben,

I doubt if you know the existing inventory of nuclear waste, or of the method used at the MCU facility at SRS to reduce waste there. Nor have you noted my lamentation (years ago on this blog) over the regulatory burden at my site - yes, 43 people signed off to change light bulbs at one facility. In a High Radiation, Airborne Contamination Area. In such a case as that, what IS the correct number of people?

I note that you haven't answered my question: what commercial entities do you support operating without inspection?

I must admit I am a bit confused by the term commercial entities. The vast majority of the activities commercial entities engage in and the products they produce are not inspected or regulated. My industry (oil drilling tools) falls under the basics. OSHA, building codes, min wage, and such. But there is no inspection of our products. Does that count as an answer? I think you wanted companies who sell to the general public. But that is a small subset of commercial entities.

I fail to see the relevance of the Buchwald column.

Posted by: jdgalt at November 21, 2015 11:29 AM
____________________________________

It's from the 1970s, so obviously things have changed a bit. I included it simply because it's very funny in general, and as a reminder of the fact that an awful lot of our modern "sacrifices" are little more than First World Problems. Like not being able to afford two cars, even modest ones - mainly because we insist on trying to have it all, whether it's having two kids instead of one or having a great deal of lazy time, as if the only point of working 40 hours a week were to waste as much time and money as possible after hours. (As Amy Dacyczyn pointed out in her book, why not spend time on hobbies that SAVE you money instead, like carpentry?)
____________________________________________

We spend 48% of our federal budget on the elderly. You claim we still aren't doing enough.
-Ben
____________________________________________

OK, I forgot that I wrote that, originally, in response to conservative columnist Betsy Hart, who, in 2008, whined about how we've lost our "sense of sacrifice to raise the next generation" - as if there were anything good about pressuring people to make babies they just don't want. (Hint to Hart: When it comes to unwanted babies, there aren't even as many adoptive couples as there used to be, thanks to fertility clinics - which is why you see older foster kids begging for a permanent home in the paper every week.) So my point was that if society is going to guilt-trip citizens into doing non-profit work, better that we do it for people who are already here - not for individuals who will never even exist, if all goes well with a couple's birth control. (Which makes me wonder why you never hear conservatives urging couples to be less "selfish" and to adopt instead of reproducing.)

At any rate, aside from that, what I said was that a lot more personal FRUGALITY, Victorian-style (you know, back when we didn't have Social Security) would be a very good start. That way, we could afford to pay more of our own expenses as we age. Even childfree people clearly very much need to save their money to pay for their own nursing homes.

And I suppose I should have said "after a certain point in the late 19th century, it was inevitable the automobile would be invented."

Or simply: "ONCE the automobile was invented, it was inevitable that...etc."

Conservatives would push for more adoption. It used to be considered a very good thing to do. But the current adoption process is completely messed up. If the parents are still alive you have almost no chance of really adopting the child. If you are the wrong color (many kids in the system are black and many prospective parents are white) you again have no real chance of adoption. This has driven adoption of foreign children (the parents usually can't afford to find their kids), but that is becoming harder and harder too. So essentially conservatives have given up. Too many road blocks. Too many other paths that are more cost effective.

You are still wrong on the automobile. It is once invented and commercialized it becomes near impossible to put the genie back into the bottle. Most inventions are invented multiple times completely independently. For example, the steam engine, roller blades, the transistor, the fast fourier transform, the field of calculus. For many of those inventions (and they are just a few off the top of my head) the time delay between first invention and commercialization was decades if not centuries. The commercialization/popularization part is critical.

I also disagree with the common view that kids are expensive. Kids suck up your time, but as far as I can tell the financial investment is minimal. People do like to spend money on kids. But almost all of that spending is more for the parents than for the kid. 99% of it could be cut with no significant loss. Interestingly this leads back around to the elderly issue. Prior to SS the elderly provided day care and education to the family. Now those services have to be outsourced. For small children the cost of day care is >90% of the cost of the child. So the family is hit on both sides. A 10% tax so the grand parents can live on their own and a loss of valuable child care services at the same time.

"You don't need a professional license to drive carpool..."

Don't give them any ideas.

You are still wrong on the automobile.
__________________________________________

If you're saying I should have said "WWI" instead of "the late 19th century," when cars were first invented, maybe. Otherwise, I don't get it. It's not as if REAL, improved transportation wasn't hugely necessary - unlike roller blades. Plus, plenty of people then - like today - considered caring for cars to be much less of a hassle than caring for horses.
___________________________________________

I also disagree with the common view that kids are expensive.
__________________________________________

Define "expensive."

They certainly are if you're poor. Just as even cable might be considered too expensive and a waste of time, compared to a hobby that saves you money. Not to mention the cost of college for ones' kids. I don't know about the cost of trade school, on average, but plenty of kids WANT college rather than trade school and really couldn't be happy with a job that didn't require one or the other - just as their parents wouldn't have been happy with that when they were younger.
__________________________________________

99% of it could be cut with no significant loss.
___________________________________________

Good lord, even Amy Dacyczyn never made a claim as wild as that! (She did write about that specific cost.)

Leaving aside those rare parents who are shallow, spendthrift, and egotistical enough to spend thousands of dollars on their child's first birthday party, with more craziness to come, I can't imagine how you could prove that "99%" figure. Besides, there's only so much a parent can cut before making the kid horribly miserable. A few years ago, Jen, here, said the following:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/07/01/give_the_lady_a.html

"I agree that parents shouldn't just say, 'we can't afford it.'

"My parents always used to say that. At some point I realized that it was not true. They had money for things that were important to them.

"They were actually pretty 'good' with money, but I'm not sure that I agree with all of their choices.

"We lived in several homes that are now valued at more than a half a million dollars each, yet we couldn't afford to go to the movies, have birthday parties, etc. We only had three outfits. Of course the homes were professionally decorated..."

I mean, no birthday parties at ALL?!
__________________________________

Prior to SS the elderly provided day care and education to the family. Now those services have to be outsourced.
__________________________________

Are you suggesting that 100 years ago or fewer, kids usually learned from grandparents INSTEAD of going to school?
____________________________________

A 10% tax so the grand parents can live on their own and a loss of valuable child care services at the same time.

Posted by: Ben at November 22, 2015 3:30 PM
____________________________________

Try not to forget that if young parents don't live near their own parents, very often they have no choice in the matter. Even in pioneer days, employment opportunities - or the lack of them - often meant the break up of extended families. Just because it used to be more common for children to grow up with grandparents in the same house didn't mean it ALWAYS happened in any given century - or that it even happened more than half the time in any given location.

Conservatives would push for more adoption.
__________________________________

Not for adoption INSTEAD of reproducing, I'll bet. Though I can imagine they might push couples who have already reproduced into making room for one or two more.

And not only is there no shortage of older foster kids (yes, with serious problems); last I heard, it's relatively smooth sailing to adopt, once you've been approved as a potential parent for a foster child. Foster kids in the paper are typically already available to be adopted. Again, you can see them there every week.

"...it's relatively smooth sailing to adopt..."

I suggest you give it a try. It is relatively smooth compared to adopting an infant. Still doesn't mean if you are white you will be allowed to adopt. But you did call it on conservatives not getting your dichotomy between adoption and breeding. As a self professed conservative I say why not both?

As for your other comments, you are a wild mix of crazy.

Only 33% of US citizens get a bachelor's degree, much less anything more. If you can't afford it so be it. Welcome to the majority.

On grandparents in the extended family, social security is almost 100 years old. So yes, you need to go back farther than that to see the world prior to social security. Also, you complain that extended families didn't always happen but a few lines above you insist that everyone pay for something only 1/3 do?

On defining expensive, try defining poor. Sorry, but kids are not that expensive in dollars for the vast majority of Americans. They just aren't. Do people spend a lot on kids, yes. But that is voluntary. Your comment with Jen doesn't bear on this. She was talking about a family that has money but refused to distribute it as Jen saw fit. You made a valid point about not lying. Neither of which has anything to do with cost.

If kids are so expensive then why do poor people have more of them?

The inverse relationship between income and fertility is well documented. It exists between nations and inside of nations. It is fairly constant across time too. Religion has an impact on it, but that is about the only thing that does. So once again, if kids are so expensive why do poor people have so many of them? Kids don't make you poor. Poor people have lots of kids. The reality is kids are time expensive. They want every second they can get from you. People with high incomes tend to have less free time. Hence the resource kids want most is in highest demand. The inverse it true too. People with low incomes tend to have more free time. And before you start cherry picking, no poor people having more time isn't 100% true. But it is true in the majority of situations.

And finally back to the car. The demand for the service the car provided is irrelevant. The government could easily have suppressed it. Even today many people are trying to eliminate the car. But stopping a few hundred cars is far easier than stopping a few hundred million. No invention is 'inevitable' as you put it.

Uber is not providing a new type of service. But the cost of providing it illegally has certainly come down. The only question is how much do local governments want to spend to suppress it.

I would add that a woman, married or single, who has not given birth or adopted is likely to have a hard time with her doctor (male or female) if she wants to get sterilized "just because" she doesn't want kids. Even if she's 30.