13

The Era of Ownership Is Ending

Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 1 month, 2 weeks ago to Technology
112 comments | Share | Flag

I think this trend will lead to a world without Humans, a world without skill, respect or appreciation and a world without responsibility.

With everything digital and nothing physical...one flick of natures wrath and it's all gone and no one will ever know your were here.
SOURCE URL: https://futurism.com/the-era-of-ownership-is-ending/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by jhthurman 1 month, 1 week ago
    If you follow the "as a service" model to its natural conclusion, you could envision a world where YOU don't own anything, even as the number those who do own productive assets consolidate the way companies are consolidating. Ultimately, the vast majority of people would be at the mercy of a very small number of people who could then effective control you by threatening to withhold the very things you need. Leading to a dystopian future.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by unitedlc 1 month, 1 week ago
      Scary isn't it? I have always believed in self reliance. I do not ever want to be in a position of having to rely on another person for anything. That is the reason I own a truck, and that it is 4WD, and I have guns and ammo, and tools for pretty much everything, and many other stocks of self sufficiency items.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  rbroberg 1 month, 1 week ago
    The right to property: Whether its an island or a book or a subscription, someone has to own it. Pure service without ownership is an oxymoron. Somebody has to own the car, the food, or the clothes on his back.

    You have to trade something to get something. You can't get a car ride for free, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You need money. Money is the distillation of trade. The fact of digital money does not make purchasing physical items with it impossible, exhibit A is: Amazon.com.

    This article follows a familiar materialist fallacy. In the same way that materialists deny consciousness because it has no "substance" i.e. because it is not physical, the "think tank" denies ownership because that concept to them has no physicality. None, that is, except, "stuff" e.g. trash. I am certain that most of us will refuse to give up our property because someone else has terrible housekeeping habits! The article argues that ownership makes people lazy. No. Laziness just makes people poor owners. A junk heap is just a junk heap until someone has the idea to use that heap to build something better.

    In summary, the article combines a socialist premise of non-ownership - which derives from non-consciousness, which derives from materialism - with the digital age in a kind of magic stew of circular reasoning. The scariest part of the article is the lack of consistent logic coming from - of all places - a "think tank".
    I agree with Carl on the phrase "world without humans". That is, only in a world with human beings is non-ownership possible. This is just another anti-human viewpoint coming from people with degrees who are paid to think up ways to "blow" people's minds e.g. make contradictory statements.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
      Excellent summery.
      From another post, this article is Backward thinking from a perceived misunderstood consequence.

      Interesting point: Think Tanks, by nature are a collective thinking the exact same things...no new or integrated information or knowledge.
      A mentor once suggested, we call an integrated group or community be called: A meeting of the Minds in a mastery of each one's mind in a "Master Mind Session" each mind bringing additional knowledge, each his own puzzle piece to the whole.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by scojohnson 1 month, 1 week ago
    I don't see it the same way, some in Silicon Valley think this is the wave of the future, but only because in their bubble of small houses on even smaller lots with non-functional garages and awful on-street parking - it completely makes sense.

    I frequently drive to the office in downtown Sacramento, park in the company's over-subscribed parking lot, but then take an Uber around downtown if I need to go somewhere because I don't want to give up my parking spot.

    At home in the hills, I rarely use it, only too or from the airport and the trip is longer than the cost to park there, or it can be handy to get some lunch if I'm waiting for the truck to get an oil change or something. And I want to say that I'm pretty much the only one in my social group that has even used Uber.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
      Sounds like you are using your resources well, out east here, things are usually a bit closer except the airports. We usually get someone else to drive us there and pick us up...better than leaving your car for the parking staff to have a good time with, Had a friend, leave his company 4WD there and they crashed it trying to navigate some rough terrain...no one told them they are not to have fun with customer cars. These are the sort that think everything is theirs to do as they please.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
      I live in the untamed west, and to get anywhere but my city falls outside the range of most Uber trips and electric cars. For me, an autonomous vehicle is not an option I'm even going to entertain at the moment, though others are welcome to choose differently. I also have a problem with most vehicles made today because they can be hacked and remotely piloted (anything with an On-Star-type system). Autonomous cars are extremely vulnerable to this.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
        I think electronics in cars has gone too far to the point that nothing is intuitive any more...to be a safe defensive driver things should be simple stupid.
        I also do not like the idea of drive by wire systems. You have no control when something goes wrong. Steering, breaks and acceleration all should be direct connect mechanical.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
          It also has the side-effect that where once one could maintain one's own vehicles with little or no effort, now one can't even become a spontaneous mechanic - it simply requires too much training and expensive equipment. So when even something simple breaks, it takes down the whole system. And as systems get more and more complex by virtue of the expansive electronic systems and programming, there are more things which can break. It's a spiral into dependency.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 1 month, 1 week ago
    Think of the world of John Lennon as he portrays it in his song, "Imagine." It's a great melody, and that doodle oodle dum on the piano is hypnotic, but what it says economics-wise is the philosophy of ignorance. That will result in exactly what the title of this post is. And Nature's wrath? Hell, make that some computer whiz sitting in mom's basemen on a convertible sofa in a pair of pizza stained skivvies.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by H2ungar123 4 weeks ago
      One of my favorite Lennon tunes and he certainly nailed it with that haunting, as you say, hypnotic
      string. And now, since you mentioned it, it's going
      round and round in my head! Imagine that!!!!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by giallopudding 1 month, 1 week ago
    The need for tools and devices to make life more efficient and satisfying will always be with us. We also harbor unquenchable desire for items which serve no apparent goal-related purposes...like art objects. Sometimes we inexplicably acquire objects which are seemingly pure expenses, offering no discernible benefits, like pets for example. The forms of the objects we desire change through time, as do our specializations of labor. So although we don't own tube radios to listen to our favorite stations, we now own iPhones or electronic devices like computers to tune in; to get from A to B, it could end up most will better spend their money renting rides, but they will spend the difference on some other items they desire, which they perceive will make their lives better.
    I think the utopian undercurrent of the Futurism article is indicative of a writer who has convinced himself that consumerism is somehow immoral. Standard leftist baloney. Consumerism is the driving force of civilized societies. Perhaps the a hatred of the producers, which so many socialists seem to harbor, leads to the correlating bias against consumerism...as if convincing ourselves to not desire to own "things" will stop the evil producers from making them, and to stop ostensibly ruining the planet.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    I think this trend will lead to a world of more efficiency, less waste, lower costs, less hassle, more choices and more productive uses of our time. Not everything will be digital, and "nature's wrath" will be overcome with multiple secure systems backups.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 1 month, 2 weeks ago
      More renting means more leverage to get individuals to do what others want simply to keep the feed-line (whatever that may be) flowing, its never a good thing....Ownership is the cornerstone of freedom and personal economy. Why rent and throw money away (into someone else's pocket) when you can own, inventing in yourself and building equity and resale value?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 month, 2 weeks ago
        Renting is not throwing money away, it is exchanging value for value. While the downside is that the tenant must conform to the landlord's requirements, upsides include being able to more easily change locations, and not having unexpected maintenance bills. There are numerous instances in which it is more in the renter's self-interest than owning would be. If renting is "never a good thing," then people wouldn't voluntarily do it.

        (Full disclosure: I have been both a renter and an owner numerous times. Currently I am an owner, but I may choose to become a renter again someday.)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
          There are benefits to both sides, I agree. Our housing bubble never would have happened if banks hadn't been forced to loan to renters who weren't sufficiently prepared to be owners.

          For me? I prefer something to call my very own.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
            It's the way I was raised to be but I think, realistically and humanistically it's the way it was meant to be.
            Now, in outerspace? or in a small colony on another planet with difficult to get resources? Yea, it kinda has to work that way but not here on earth.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 1 month, 2 weeks ago
          For many renting is not a choice. You are right though, I generalized and did not account forvavwillfuk strategy. Still the move from invidual ownship is collectivism at its fullest - lords and surfs. My 2 bits.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  1 month, 2 weeks ago
            And that's where dependents starts...you have to depend on the landlord to fix things...you can do little to nothing yourself.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 month, 2 weeks ago
              In any economy in which there is a division of labor, people will depend on other people to perform their specialized roles. I don't think physical self-sufficiency is what Objectivism is all about. The important thing for individuals in a market economy is the freedom to find another (landlord, blacksmith, banker, carpenter, etc.) if the current one is not performing to one's satisfaction.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
                Yes, but what I am referring to is that you gota call the landlord to get something fixed...you can't call a pro on your own and get faster service...your at the mercy of others, either way you look at it.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 month, 1 week ago
                  "Mercy" does not really appropritely describe such an event. It's a particular instance of depending on others to fulfill their end of the bargain, which is true for any free-market transaction. It may be inconvenient to have to wait longer for something to be fixed, but that's part of the rental "package". The ownership "package" comes with plenty of disadvantages of its own. In fact there are trade-offs involved in just about every decision that you make.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
                    But look at what it's done to those in the cities, especially those with less means...you become so dependent and disempowered that you just can't take care of yourself, control yourself and get yourself out of that mess...that's probably why they moved the poorer masses into the cities. I witnessed this happening on the east coast growing up...thankfully, I didn't live in the city.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 month, 1 week ago
                      Who are the "they" that "moved the poorer masses into the cities"? Your post seems to imply that renters, especially poor ones, are helpless victims of their environment. Renting does not make one "dependent" and "disempowered" any more than homeowning makes one independent and empowered.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
                        I am talking about the action of governments, (Feds, cities and states) to move the poor folks from the south ,Appalachia and the rural areas into the northern cities. This ended up trapping these folks in low income or welfare housing. Then we saw an increase of theft and violence soon after. I remember seeing this trend each year traveling through Providence Rode Island, on the way to Cape Cod...then soon enough, we saw the same thing happen to our bigger cities in Connecticut. I lived in a small town next to Waterbury, once know as the Brass City...it all went to hell and our parents forebode us from going into that city for any reason, not even to the Movies. This was in the early 60's
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
      Perhaps, but as I can personally attest to working with cloud systems in IT, it also means an unholy dependence on your providers. We've seen our entire phone network offlined for software glitches in Microsoft updates. We've seen our cloud-based service providers conveniently raise their rates - without a thing we can really do.

      Thanks, but I want local control and ownership of my data and my tooling. I want the ability to get things done irrespective of anyone else. I don't want to be locked into one giant corporation's method of doing things and paying for the privilege!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 month, 1 week ago
        And that's your choice, which was kind of my point. As technology continues to improve, many people will validly choose to forego physical ownership of certain goods (such as cars), while others will validly choose to continue owning them. The only alternative is for government to forbid people from exercising their right to choose. And that would truly be "collectivist in nature," as the OP put it.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
          Oh I'm not denying that it is a choice everyone should have, I'm just pointing out the very nature of the relationship you are getting into with such services: in many cases you are betting your entire business on the other company's ability to provide a service upon which your livelihood rests. And the costs of changing systems are immense, in come cases being entirely prohibitive. I'm not arguing that one should not have the ability to make such contracts, I'm simply questioning the wisdom in so doing based on my own personal experience.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 1 month, 1 week ago
    Interesting blog but not attainable. Maybe for the northeast corridor such services could work or in major megalopolis.Outside of such area's in Arizona and rural states where there is large distances between cities, towns, villages would not work at all. If this planet got hit with a massive CME all that would be gone.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  nickursis 1 month, 1 week ago
    I think the trend depicted is a good summation of the overall movement, and it has several factors:
    1. Less cost in production, in that digital material is way cheaper than hard copy.
    2. For transportation, it dovetails into the incessant push to crowd people into smaller areas, so as to minimize cost of services associated, less power transmission, less movement needed to go to work, school, etc.
    3. It imposes a more easily controlled framework of support on people, and hence, control of people themselves. It may be a conspiracy theory, but it has appeared that the political monster of both sides has always been pushing for a greater control over the masses. If they do not do what is desired, then services get cut (oops, power failure), or restrictions put in place ( nope, no cars for you).

    It is the antithesis of freedom and personal responsibility, in that all your needs are met by the "system", and so you are dependent on the system and whoever is running it.

    Nope, I will buy my DVDs, and not need Netflix. I record any books or music, I try to limit my exposure to "the system" as much as possible, and depend on my own resources. My responsibility is to know my needs, not have someone else tell me what they are (or what they say they are).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
      1,2,and 3, is what Maurice Strong proposed...he hated the masses...as if he was perfect, he was not, he was corrupt and evil. Rest in Chaos...for the evil bastard is dead now.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by walkabout 1 month, 1 week ago
    Some of the examples are a stretch. For years I have talked about "capability." People want a new car, I ask what is that capability costing you now? and how much will a new car coast you for the same capability? Entertainment? How much are you spending now for the capability(8 tracks, cassettes, DVD, CD, MP3's) what will the new system cost -- don't forget to include storage fees and disposal costs. People lease cars. Cost of capability,but no disposal cost. People rent homes! Someone still has to own things (to lease the service of out). Maybe the new model promotes sharing -- I sense "time share" and I'm thinking that model kinda ran it's course. Maybe I'm being dense, but how do you buy "as a service" phone capability w/o having some kind of physical phone? Many, many things we have always purchased "as a service" (phones, air travel for instance). Even real estate we only "own" it as long as we pay the mortgage to pay the rent on the money (and more importantly) and the taxes.
    I think people like to own things. I wish they liked to own more things. If people thought it through they would own their retirement funds, rather than buy "as a service" Social Security." Private property is the backbone of the free market, capitalist system! We tend to take better care of what we own (I give you public housing). So far the latest "revolution" (communication) has be evolving so fast it has made sense not to "own" it. If it ever slows down, ownership will make more sense. The on demand (as a service) model is so vulnerable to outside forces (EMP events; infrastructure failure etc.) that one good failure and many people will re-think netflix and Uber. If I drop my fire in the toilet, what happens to the books I have "bought" (but haven't really bought)?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
      Lots to think about...something the collective global left cabal is not very good at.

      We do have to consider what is most probable in the near future when dealing with anything electronic. We will be most vulnerable over the next 30 to 70 years and it's not your fault but it Is the fault of those that make this stuff for not looking into the future and preparing for the worst.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by walkabout 1 month, 1 week ago
        "fault" is an ugly and unnecessary word/concept. There are lots of factors to keep in mind when buying anything. A thoughtful buyer will consider such things as the fragility of the electric grid. In the book One second after, the hero happens to own an Edsel that runs after the EMP attack because it was built with 1950's technology -- good thing to have after infrastructure failure (but an expensive insurance policy). Edison promoted D.C. household current. The infrastructure was untenable in the long term (in that case a few short years). Computers used to occupy large rooms and require near-sterile conditions and serious air conditioning, now that much capability is in my pocket (and who knows how long this iteration will last). As a service model works better for some things than others. I own a number of hammers and saws, etc. -- I don't own a backhoe or crane, though occasionally I purchase the service of each. Most private pilots don't own an airplane, they rent when they want to fly. The ones who do probably own a plane they use for their everyday needs; then maybe once a year they rent a 6 seater to go on vacation with the family. Same thing for many people with RV's
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 1 month, 1 week ago
    "ownership is the rudder of morality"
    Without any ownership, where does morality go?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 month, 1 week ago
      Re: "ownership is the rudder of morality". Does this mean that the more stuff people own, the better? Am I less moral if I decide to lease my house and car, and "stream" my movies and music rather than buying CDs and DVDs, preferring to "own" an intangible such as my investment portfolio? Physical ownership is not a necessary prerequisite for living rationally, productively or morally.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
        Not more stuff the better, simply if one owns something of value...like a house, car or business you'll take care of it, appreciate it and have a sense of accomplishment that will guide you in regards to other endeavors and the treatment of someone else's property as well...to include their person. Not to mention, becoming self reliant and better apt to help others too. Also, having a sense of community comes to mind.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 month, 1 week ago
          There are plenty of homeowners who do not respect other people, and plenty of renters who do. A person's morality and attitude toward others has little or nothing to do with whether he or she is a homeowner or a renter.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
            This, you might realize, was a generalized phrase. There are always exceptions to the rule, the observation or the ideal. Hardly anything is 100%.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 month, 1 week ago
              I don't think it works even as a generalization, let alone 100%. I've been a renter for about half my lifetime to date and an owner the other half, an in neither case did my ownership status influence my personal morality. Nor do I see any "homeownership effect" on the morality of people I am acquainted with.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 1 month, 1 week ago
    So if I need to drill a common hole in this ownershipless world, I would go to a social phone and call for social transportation to get to the social tool shed to get a social drill. It takes about 30 minutes for the social vehicle to arrive and another five to drive one and a 1/2 miles to the social shed. There I get in the social line and wait my social turn to talk to the social administrator. Unfortunately the only drills they have are either much too heavy or much to underpowered. And, the only drill bits they seem to have bore holes into two foot steal walls or are designed for nothing stronger than balsa wood.
    Big waste of time and no hole drilled today...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
      Chapter 1? Lets hear the next chapter and more grizzly disappointments...perhaps a sequel to 1984- A cowardly new world.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Solver 1 month, 1 week ago
        Part 2... "24"
        Right now, we're planning to hammer in some social nails. My wife and daughter have been filling out forms to have a social hammer ready for pickup... and people that are working for me are standing around doing nothing. I'm In an ownership-less world, and this is the longest day of my life...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
          Give us little hints from time to time, pre-building a profit making readership...I'd by that book...a physical one so that when everything goes dark, It will still be here to warn others in the future.

          That was a mistake I made with my first book...didn't include a physical copy but even still...I sold 130,000 down loads, a lot more than I expected.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Stormi 1 month, 1 week ago
    I don't know, the whole article had the feel of John Lenin's "Imagine", which even he did not believe at his end. I have multiple PCs, all different OS, because, some ability gets lost with each new OS, so you can go back and do what you want to do. I have books now out of print, tools left form relatives, not all available. When one depends on "service providers", sometimes they don't have what your want, or decide to no longer supply. Yeah, it is a cause of clutter, but what joy when you can do what somebody says is not possible. What joy when I climb into MY Camaro, not some service ride. We are bonded. I know Japan rents pets, but I want no part of that either.Can anyone forget "Gone With the Wind", and ow the land was the thing from which they drew strength? Now the UN says we should not own land, but live where they put us, with government control. They rprovide the choices of high rises, at a great service cost to us - and no freedom. When I sit on my deck, looking at my yard, I can pull out my MP2 player and lsiten to my late dad play his big band music on his sax. No service can smurpass that!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 1 month, 1 week ago
    Owning a drill gives you more than the ability to drill a hole. It helps you create and build on an efficient scale that was unheard of a couple of centuries ago. Tools don't give you more free time, you still have to work to produce, you can simply produce more. Some people own things to own things, those people fail to see the potential in things and use them.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 1 month, 1 week ago
    The future generations will be confronted with rebellion all over the USA. If you look at how things work in all of the other countries that populate the world the bulk live in poverty because that is all they have know throughout their history but in the USA that has not been the case for its existence. Things have until now gotten better for each generation and now that is no longer happening. When all does deteriorate which is in the process of happening people will have nothing and the warring will then begin until they run out of bullets and we that is humanity will have entered the dark ages again only this time things will not rebound. You can thank those who we have elected to run the govern for us.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Storo 1 month, 1 week ago
    The author of the subject piece is just another "futurist" who has put forth a scenario which in theory works because everyone is on board, and the non-ownership meme works flawlessly. The fact is that such a system is Utopian. It strikes at the heart of Objectivism, Capitalism, and the ideas of freedom and liberty by creating an underlying assumption that everybody will get on board and everyone will be willing to give up their independence and freedom in exchange for everyone being "equal". In such a case, the moochers win again, and the independence of the individual is crushed by dependence on others for what that individual needs.
    Another aspect that hasn't been touched on here is combining non-ownership with robots. The goal of those who push for these technologies is to replace the human being and the attendant wages, benefits, etc., with systems that can operate 24/7 at a fraction of the cost. They even now are experimenting with a robot that flips burgers! Amazon is using drones to make deliveries!
    So we rent, not own, and we have no job, or very limited options for work. Where then do we get the money to rent anything?
    And even if by some miracle we have the funds to rent stuff, from whom will we rent? My guess is Amazon, Google, General Motors and other global companies who by virtue of their reach will own and control everything.
    No thanks!! If we believe in the sanctity of the individual we MUST fight such trends tooth and nail.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  allosaur 1 month, 1 week ago
    Me dino has both owned and rented. One thing about renting, it's a lot easier to stay within a budget.
    The house? I had saved $35,000 for the down payment and ended up losing it all to a divorce.
    I was not even the one who was cheating.
    Kids being involved makes a difference.
    Been renting ever since. Nobody's taking squat away from me again unless it's burglars when me dino the NRA qualified shooter ain't home.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
      Lost my first, built myself house, because wife cheated, doin dope and didn't pay bills like I asked while I built said house...went bankrupt! met new wife, 5 years later built new and bigger/better house and have been married 25 years this july 11...guess it was a good roll of the dice this time.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  allosaur 1 month, 1 week ago
        Congratulations. And I'm not being sarcastic.
        Someone into real estate once asked me, "Don't YOU want to leave SOMETHING behind?"
        I thought of that house I lost. I can drive by it any time I want just a few blocks from where I now sit. Then I said, "You can't take it with you."
        He decided to talk to someone else in the room that was an advanced training class for the the Alabama Department of Corrections.
        Think he sidelined house flipping or something like that.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    The saying goes People want a hole, not a drill. Owning the drill, car, CD, etc is a burden on the owner because they require space and depreciate in value. It may be worthwhile, but it's not a place to store wealth. It's much better to have wealth in investments that generate value.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month, 2 weeks ago
      Ok, but it is empowering to be able to make one's holes when ever or where ever one wants without depending upon anyone else, much less a monthly fee for the service of others.
      I like your saying though...never heard that one before.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 2 weeks ago
        There are elements of the service model I don't like. I still have old tapes from the 80s, but content I buy/license from Amazon may not be available to me 30 years from now. I also don't think I can transfer it to my heirs.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by unitedlc 1 month, 1 week ago
      I would argue that a drill is worth much more than an "investment" such as fiat currency or stock in a company. We are at all times literally one significant event away from a stock becoming worthless, or a currency experiencing skyrocketing inflation. A drill in the hands of someone who knows how to use it, can create something tangible. Call me an alarmist, but I live much more comfortably with useful things and the knowledge of how to use them, than an overabundance of "money" backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 1 week ago
        "I would argue that a drill is worth much more than an "investment" such as fiat currency or stock in a company. "
        You cannot invest in currency for the reasons you say. Currency is a medium of exchange, not a store of value.

        Imagine I get my car fixed at a shop. The shop owns drills that cost $300 new and will be worth $0 after three year's use; they lose $8/mo value. Say they earn $300 fixing my car. If they put the money under the mattress, it will lose $0.75 or so a month in value. So there's nothing alarmist at all about not storing value there. Say the shop earns $50k/yr after all expenses including the market value of labor of any owners who make work there. So it's worth roughly $500k b/c it gives off a steady stream of $50k per year. In calculating the company's value, you might add in the value of the drills and other equipment, but it's probably small next to the value of having a system that generates a profit. Maybe five (5) shareholders own it with stock worth $100k per person.

        The value of the shop isn't less because it's divided into share of stock in a company. The company's drills and parts continue to have just salvage value, and they depreciate over time. The company's value comes from having a proven system of providing something that customers are willing to pay for that leads to profit, and it will go up or down depending on that. The money they get from customers and that they use to pay their suppliers depreciates a few percent per year, fast, although not as fast as equipment, so they don't want to hold on to piles of money or equipment. Equipment is for getting a job done, and money is for trading for other things of value.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by unitedlc 1 month, 1 week ago
          Good correction, money is NOT an investment. Many people do inadvisably use money as a store of value however.

          We are talking about an individual owning a drill, not a business. Nobody would question the logic in a business owning a drill. The difference for an individual, is that the drill does not depreciate in the hands of an individual like it does in a business application. An individual is, generally speaking, going to take better care of the drill and not wear it out because of it's limited use. It will still have value many years from now. An individual should weigh many things before buying a drill. If there is near zero chance that more than one hole will ever need to be drilled, then buying a drill makes little sense. I think the point of this article is looking at a situation where when there is a near break even point, people are choosing to rent a drill or contract the services for a driller as opposed to buying their own drill. If hiring a hole to be drilled costs $10, and I know that over time I will need 10 holes drilled, then I can either spend $100 to have someone drill my holes, or I can buy a drill for $100 and drill my own. Most people nowadays will pay someone $100 to drill their holes. You now have no drill and no skill. If the off chance you ever need another hole drilled, then you are now officially in the red, not to mention you do not have a drill to barter with in the impending zombie apocalypse.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
            An adaptation of an ole saying...once one has a drill... the more holes one needs, wants or finds to drill.
            Laughing but true!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by NealS 1 month, 1 week ago
              I've "err"ed a lot in my life especially when it comes to buying tools. Numbers mean little too me anymore, and have meant little most of my life. It has given me so much pleasure and peace of mind for myself, and my loved ones, and even my friends, all the projects I have done for them. When I need something I can usually go to the shop and get it.

              I would not buy a bulldozer just to push some dirt around one time, but I would by an air driven stapler for one stupid simple little project rather than rent one or even borrow one. A secret, I used to only buy Porter-Cable, Milwaukee, Delta, etc. (excellent commercial tools, then stupid me sold my P-C Stapler before my big move because I would never again need it), but now I buy certain things I really don't need very much anymore from Harbor Freight, cheaper than any rental. I still can't believe how they can make a stapler/nailer combo for around $12, it's just impossible, and I really don't care either. At my age it will outlast me as long as I don't leave it laying outside in the snow. Perhaps after the government puts tariffs on the cheap stuff things will change, but then again I could care less, I'm in the checkout column myself. I find it interesting how our attitude also changes drastically with age. Anyone need a drill motor, I've got at least five, all the way from plastic battery junk up to an all metal Milwaukee that could actually twist your arm off if you get the bit jammed. Sorry to say, but I actually know that from personal experience, and it hurt like hell.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 1 week ago
            Yes. It's up to each individual. I generally don't rent electronic equipment, for example, except for this one device I rarely use. If you do the math, even considering they calibrate and replace it when it wears out, it's cheaper to own frequently-used equipment.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by unitedlc 1 month, 1 week ago
              I like to err on the side of ownership when the numbers are even close. Most people I know rent things and have other people do everything for them. They can't change their own oil in their car, let alone load and fire a rifle. It is truly a scary thought to consider what this country would become if self reliance were ever needed again.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  nickursis 1 month, 1 week ago
                Yep, there is a fine line between "will i use it again" vs cost of buying. A lot of rental places are really expensive now (I rented a ditch witch for 120.00 for 3 hours, 240.00 for 24, so I went with 24, I wasn't buying one...).
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 1 week ago
                  The rule of thumb in electronics used to be one month's rent is a tenth of the purchase price, but once interest rates went to zero it went to 1/20 to 1/15 of the purchase price. If high interest rates return, I wonder if the psychology of renting will change.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
        I'm with you unitedlc, old school wins every time!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by NealS 1 month, 1 week ago
          I recently (last month) sold my CNC Spindle with a 5'x10' footprint because I moved and needed the space in my new 4 car garage that still somehow seems to be too full to get two cars into. This house didn't have a huge shop like the old one. Even though I only used the CNC on occasion I really miss it and am already in the market for a new smaller one, maybe only 3'x5' footprint. Now after my move I'm finding drill motors that I had even forgotten I still had. Only have found five so far.

          In my new location, out in the sticks, I found a retiree coffee group that meets at 8:00 and 15:00 every day at the local Subway Sandwich shop. They are retired, auto worker, pipeline workers, tires sales, school teachers/principal, police, a fireman, woodworker, machinist, tile man, financial advisor, retired military, even a politician, etc.. Between us I would guess we have every tool and skill possible, oh yes , even a veterinarian. I just loaned a guy some stone chisels to knock some brick off a fireplace, and I have used his pickup truck (with the keys always stored on the visor) to haul some plywood. One guy does small engine repair to which I donated my Stihl chainsaw and chain grinder to as I (at my age) don't wish to ever use it ever again. He's (younger than me) volunteered to do any cutting for me if I need it. We've almost got a community tool program going here, it's great. Even free use of a backhoe, small dozer, powered dump trailer, etc. I haven’t even used my pressure washer in 2 years. Nah, I don't plan on buying tools anymore. Now we just need a community shop area to store all our stuff. Then I'll be able to get my two vehicles and two boats in my garage, at least in the winter. We also trade meat (almost all of these guys hunt); deer, moose, elk, fish, even pig, fresh, smoked, and dried. I think I’ll even donate my smoker if someone else will at least store it. Old school will always be around at least as long as I am alive. Old school between my friends seems to come with a do-it-yourself attitude.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
            And that my friend...is a true American community...my neighborhood is very much like that. When I first lost my beloved job at DeWalt power tools in 2009, I did Handyman work to earn money until I found a steady job, glad I had the tools to do that.

            Thank the Creators of stuff for the stuff they create...
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    I agree with CBJ. All of these narratives "in the future, everyone will..." ignore the salient general fact that old forms do not disappear.

    This was cogently explained by Jane Jacobs in The Economy of Cities. The craft industry that made brass fittings for horse tack (harnesses, etc.) shifted to make brass fittings for machineries. I point out that horses are still big business, especially as they are luxury items for the rich. We do not need as many blacksmiths and farriers but those we have earn good wages.

    In 600 BCE cows were money; every city was a kingdom; and priests explained the will of the gods. Then coins were invented; democracies were invented; philosophy was invented -- all of them in the same revolution c. 550 BCE. But we still have kings and priests - and you can trade cows for wheat in the commodities exchanges in quantities never dreamed of in 600 BCE.

    I agree that in the future ownership of things will change. It is not the end of ownership.

    In closing, I point out that in ancient times farmers owned their land. A farmer who did not was not legally free or legally a citizen who could vote. But in the mercantile age, traders rented their homes. They did not actually own the goods they bought and sold, but made their money by transferring the goods to efficient markets. The mercantile revolution continues...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month, 2 weeks ago
      Hmm, not convinced guys. I still see this Non ownership as the nemesis of sovereignty, pride of accomplishment and responsibility; not to mention a collective redistribution of income. In fact, I see this whole idea as collectivist in nature and a perpetuation of a much larger city state where one could not survive as a result of their own efforts and solve their own problems.
      I don't think "the creation of value that never existed prior" survives within the individual.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 month, 2 weeks ago
        The key is whether people can continue to own whatever they wish to. "Collective redistribution of income" involves the use of force, and does not occur just because, for example, most people someday choose Uber or its competitors rather than owning their own car for their transportation needs.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  1 month, 2 weeks ago
          That has been my point all along...choice should remain among the individual but collectively, their non-ownership meme by itself is a redistribution of income consequentially by it's nature. Without choice as part of our culture, we all end up in this rabbit hole.
          We are Not going to run out of resources, we will invent or create new resources. Perhaps Printing via vibrational frequencies someday...out of thin air, so to speak...the same way living matter is created quantumly.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Dobrien 1 month, 2 weeks ago
            The options in housing to rent or own provides choices and depending on circumstances one may be the better choice than the other. Ex. I rented scaffolding to install new window sashes only needed it for a day but the drill/screwdriver I own as it is available on demand with many uses. I rent a fishing boat and motor but I own my tackle and rods. Let the free market be free and let the demand or trends take us into the future.
            BTW people always want to scare us into the scenario of scarcities . I say...... well someone once said necessity is the mother of invention.
            Freedom from the controlling maggots granted by our constitution allowed America to revolutionize the Industrial Age, aviation , manufacturing, the technology, the energy ,agriculture and medicine enabling the world to sustain an incredible population. Yet The maggots have clawed their way back to weaken our constitution spy and control the people whom they are supposed to represent and work for. High time for another revolution.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo