Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

I believe in the days of the Titanic, economy was called "steerage".

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/na...421258184.html

Some of us still call it "steerage" from time to time.

If the child's boarding pass says "Infant in Arms", that means you did not pay for another seat, so you're expected to hold the kid. While it's technically correct that they paid for the seat for their older son, it's also correct that since he took an earlier flight, and therefore was a "no show" at the gate for their flight, Delta was within their rights to cancel his reservation, and give someone else that seat. It's not overbooking, they just didn't want to hold the kid for 6 hours, to which I say "Tough".

EDIT: This is a lot like the United story that came out a week or two ago about the couple who tried to "upgrade" themselves to Econ+ on a flight that wasn't full, then whined when they were kicked off the aircraft.

There's a difference between the assault that happened to the doctor (or "Pee-gate", if you want a Delta example), and passengers who just want to bend the rules. Yes, flying in economy sucks, we all know it. Tough.

[LynahFan]

Some of us still call it "steerage" from time to time.

If the child's boarding pass says "Infant in Arms", that means you did not pay for another seat, so you're expected to hold the kid. While it's technically correct that they paid for the seat for their older son, it's also correct that since he took an earlier flight, and therefore was a "no show" at the gate for their flight, Delta was within their rights to cancel his reservation, and give someone else that seat. It's not overbooking, they just didn't want to hold the kid for 6 hours, to which I say "Tough".

EDIT: This is a lot like the United story that came out a week or two ago about the couple who tried to "upgrade" themselves to Econ+ on a flight that wasn't full, then whined when they were kicked off the aircraft.

There's a difference between the assault that happened to the doctor (or "Pee-gate", if you want a Delta example), and passengers who just want to bend the rules. Yes, flying in economy sucks, we all know it. Tough.

Agree 100%. If you pay for nosebleeds, you don't get to go sit in a box just because you spot an empty seat.

Edit: it's not clear from the article, though, if the teenager paid again for his earlier flight or if he changed his existing reservation. If the family paid for 5 total seats ( one on early flight, four on later flight), then I am confused as to what I think....

[Kepler]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Agree 100%. If you pay for nosebleeds, you don't get to go sit in a box just because you spot an empty seat.

Meh. By the third inning / takeoff, I think it's yours.

[LynahFan]

Meh. By the third inning / takeoff, I think it's yours.

Socialist!

[joecct]

Meh. By the third inning / takeoff, I think it's yours.

Plus a small gratuity to the usher and it's usually not a problem.

[Kepler]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Plus a small gratuity to the usher and it's usually not a problem.

You obviously never went to Shea. They'd break your arm for trying to get to the lower deck.

[joecct]

You obviously never went to Shea. They'd break your arm for trying to get to the lower deck.

We had company box seats (mezzanine) at Yankee Stadium. Dad would buy box seats for Shea, though we sat in the RF nosebleeds for the 69 WS.

Memorial Stadium was very friendly to moving on up.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Meh. By the third inning / takeoff, I think it's yours.

Once you are in the air and the seatbelt sign is off, it is generally OK to switch seats, or move to another open seat, within the same class of service. I see it all the time when there's space in the exit rows.

That is obviously not what happened here.

[jerphisch]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Agree 100%. If you pay for nosebleeds, you don't get to go sit in a box just because you spot an empty seat.

Edit: it's not clear from the article, though, if the teenager paid again for his earlier flight or if he changed his existing reservation. If the family paid for 5 total seats ( one on early flight, four on later flight), then I am confused as to what I think....

This shouldn't be confusing at all. Airline tickets are non-transferable, period. You can't buy a ticket for your wife and then decide to give your mother the seat. If you want a seat for a passenger without a ticket, the only way to get it is to buy them a ticket.

[SJHovey]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

There was an interesting column recently in the Minneapolis Star Tribune on a subject Kepler has touched on, briefly, in some of his past posts. The idea that at some point technology will largely eliminate the idea of work, the need people will have for a guaranteed income, and how do we get there.

It won't happen in the decade, tops, I'll be getting up and heading off to the salt mine in the morning, but posters younger than me will have to struggle with this transition.

For those interested. http://www.startribune.com/lee-schaf...ome/421479323/

[joecct]

There was an interesting column recently in the Minneapolis Star Tribune on a subject Kepler has touched on, briefly, in some of his past posts. The idea that at some point technology will largely eliminate the idea of work, the need people will have for a guaranteed income, and how do we get there.

It won't happen in the decade, tops, I'll be getting up and heading off to the salt mine in the morning, but posters younger than me will have to struggle with this transition.

For those interested. http://www.startribune.com/lee-schaf...ome/421479323/

If we don't make anything, but leave it to machines (which we made), how does civilization advance?

Under the above scenario, it seems we exist, not live.

[St. Clown]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

If we don't make anything, but leave it to machines (which we made), how does civilization advance?

Under the above scenario, it seems we exist, not live.

Many people, though not everyone, will seek out a purpose to their daily lives. There are certain tasks that simply cannot be automated no matter how much our tech advances. So the idea that people will seek out those careers, or create new industries, technologies or uses for current tech, is what will drive the success of this experiment.

This will follow some sort of bell curve, in that we have to adjust the expectations of the curve to current demographics in that area - own education, own religion, parents' education, parents' religion, cost of living, etc..

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Many people, though not everyone, will seek out a purpose to their daily lives. There are certain tasks that simply cannot be automated no matter how much our tech advances. So the idea that people will seek out those careers, or create new industries, technologies or uses for current tech, is what will drive the success of this experiment.

This will follow some sort of bell curve, in that we have to adjust the expectations of the curve to current demographics in that area - own education, own religion, parents' education, parents' religion, cost of living, etc..

Excellent post. I agree 100%.

[Rover]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

There was an interesting column recently in the Minneapolis Star Tribune on a subject Kepler has touched on, briefly, in some of his past posts. The idea that at some point technology will largely eliminate the idea of work, the need people will have for a guaranteed income, and how do we get there.

It won't happen in the decade, tops, I'll be getting up and heading off to the salt mine in the morning, but posters younger than me will have to struggle with this transition.

For those interested. http://www.startribune.com/lee-schaf...ome/421479323/

No offense to my learned friend Kep but I don't see this Star Trek type world existing anytime soon. There's a simple reason for this that has nothing to do with robots, conservatives, liberals or anything else.

The reason is almost everyone knows a mooch. Could be a sibling, an in-law, an old friend, whatever. Under this guaranteed income scenario, all of these people get money regardless of effort. That's never going to fly. Not taking a position on whether that's right or wrong but the results of the last election ought to tell you what can happen when even a crazed lunatic can connect with people on an emotional level. Now one could argue under guaranteed income we're all mooches essentially but again I've watched 40 years of "welfare queens" and "illegal immigrants stealing your jobs" to know that these sort of appeals actually work.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Pretty soon, it's going to be "Robots and computers are stealing your jerbs!", and then the purge of Silicon Valley will begin.