You would think that's the case but from experience it's not. I can name two hospitals in NYC that were supposed to see savings from EHR implementations but ended up having multiple competing EHRs that don't speak to each other because of conflicts of interest. You forget there in many cases there are many payors, tech vendors and providers within a single institution.
That's been my experience as well. EHR providers have no incentive to exchange data with each other and will do everything in their power not to. There are regional efforts towards interoperability but there needs to be more political will to mandate cooperation.
Eh, Epic and Cerner interface fine, and offer HL7 interfaces, and Epic in particular bends over backwards to do what their customers want for implementations. My impression was that hospitals are (understandably) reluctant to allow their direct competitors direct access to information they've collected.
I wouldn't go that far with Epic. They always have some unadvertised module they try to push on hospitals the minute they want to interface with a third party.
What about HL7? When I last worked with an EHR system (2? years ago), implementing HL7-based interop with other providers was all the rage so that they could eliminate fax machines when transferring patient records.
And when private banks provide near-unlimited debt the total cost of the average mortgage will consume all income after paying for food/heating/fuel.
And if we get more productive disposable income will go up and that will feed into land prices.
All the rentier need do is wait.
edit: would love to hear the counter to this from whomever downvoted me - it's a fact that with our system productivity improvements flow into land prices therefore speculating on land sees you capture these gains.
I didn't down vote you but here is the flaw. Rent typically trends upward with property values which eats away at a tenants ability to save. This is particularly true in markets like NYC, SF, LDN and HK where people are paying over 50% of their paycheck to rent.
That was lack of transparency inside privately generated mortgage backed securities. The US crash wasn't caused by blatant lies about economic indicator (GDP numbers, etc). The transparency of the housing sales is actually what allowed people to see the contractions and prevent the issue from getting even worse.
Transparency of housing sales isn't what allowed people to see the contractions and it certainly didn't keep the problem from getting worse. Massive numbers of defaults were the indicator. What kept the problem from getting worse was the government taking partial ownership of the major banks/AIG, increasing the FDIC limit and TARP.
With the tech bubble/bust you could look at underlying companies for the canary in the coal mine. With the housing bubble/bust as you mention you could look at each mortgage and the ability of the borrower to pay. When you have a bubble arguably in government debt, what is the mechanism of transparency to look for?
With the housing bubble there wasn't a good way to look at each mortgage or the borrowers ability to pay. In a lot of cases the mortgage data was falsified or didn't even exist. In the aftermath of the bust several banks could not produce any documentation on homes they wanted to foreclose on.
I have a difficult time believing that stability is the main reason for the lack of integration. Admins have the ability enable/disable certain features. Throw a beta flag in front of the feature and say it's not supported.
While most real estate agents are completely useless I don't believe the profession is useless. A good real estate agent knows everything about the area they service. What areas have bad reputations and crime scores but are perfectly safe? What areas have development plans in the works? What are the local laws and ordinances, how does that affect your purchase? How difficult is it to get permits for types of work? Are residents fleeing an area because of upcoming re-zoning that isn't well published? They'll have a vast network of trusted service professionals that can help you renovate. They will know little things like which HOA has unreasonable board members or which homes keep going up for sale because the next door neighbor is crazy.
On top of all that small but invaluable information a good real estate agent will make the process of buying your home smoother. I don't think many people have an appreciation for how difficult it is to manage a title company, the seller's agent, three attorneys, a loan officer and the bank. Contrary to popular belief it is not always in the best interest for them to all work together. In some cases one or several of those parties my have a vested interest in slowing the process down or killing the deal completely.
This was inevitable and it is going to drive real estate sale and rental prices up dramatically in tourist destinations. I have relatives who own rental property in Key West, they used to sign year long leases and manage the property year round. With Airbnb they rent the same property 1 week each month and make more money than they did with the year long lease. Ultimately landlords have little incentive to rent to locals. Airbnb means they never worry about have to go to landlord/tenant court to evict and never have to worry about getting paid monthly.
Which is in turn extremely damaging to communities where real estate is at a premium and even people who make a lot of money struggle to find housing they can afford. There's a reason full-time AirBnBing is illegal in a lot of these municipalities, and it's the same reason it should stay that way.
There should be some limitations in place but how would you enforce them? If your local government checks Airbnb regularly to find people breaking the law then people will just use some other method to do the same thing as Airbnb.
If I was the person in charge of enforcing it, I would probably do something like:
1 - Make it illegal for Airbnb style services to operate in that area, including making a website available, advertising the service, taking listings in that region, etc
2 - Threaten to jail or heavily fine senior employees if law broken
3 - Offer a legal route which involves an audit trail of bookings being supplied to the local gov
4 - Use audit trail to deal with rule-breaking landlords
Steps 1 and 2 are essentially how the US government deals with foreign gambling websites.
And since it is only the U.S.'s regulations that make a particular piece of property "yours" rather than "no one's", arguing about the legitimacy of said regulations is incredibly daft. In the absence of regulations, you don't have any property at all.
This looks like the exact inverse of the VC market:
VC's place tons of bets, knowing that most will crash and burn but hoping that a few percent will win out and cover all the other loses.
In the professional AirBnB host world, they place tons of bets, the vast majority pay out small amounts (individually) with the hope that they don't get any of the BAD guests that wipe out gains across their network.
That might be true now. Will it be true in the future? As word gets out you can make $$$$$ renting on AirBnB then more and more people will do it until there is competition for renters which will lowering prices.
I don't know that will happen but it's certainly a possibility with the prices now only being possible because supply hasn't yet caught up with demand.
It will remain true in places where there is limited supply due to geography or legal restrictions. Those also happen to be where a lot of major tourist destinations are.
In areas with legal restrictions, it sounds like the solution is to fix the legal restrictions. The law can be changed, after all; geography is a little less malleable.
You say that like it's a simple thing, it's not. Here is a concrete example of what I mean. In NYC rent control/stabilization artificially limits the supply and increases the cost of non-stabilized units. If rent control was eliminated rental values across the city would plummet in non-stabilized units. As a result property values in non-stabilized buildings would plummet as well. You could easily trigger a panic as landlords try to sell off property that is declining in value. There are unintended side effects to changing laws, it's never as simple as just fixing a legal restriction.
I fail to see how ending rent control would hurt property values. If anything, it should increase them; now there is not a multigenerational pseudo property right that can be passed on. You can see this in listings; rent controlled units sell for way below normal prices because of the threat that the tenant can invite a relative to stay and then pass on their sweet deal for another generation, all on the property owners' dime.
Rent stabilization is similar. It would raise the property values in rent stabilized buildings. It would also raise rents in the rent stabilized buildings.
Where it would hurt is market rate apartments. They would likely see rents fall over time given the market is no longer bifurcated.
To ease the transition, a phase out would probably be in order, but given that a phase out can be terminated it would probably have to be one big shove out the door.
> rent-controlled units make up something like 2% of all units
True, but that is actually a great deal of lost income for the landlords in those cases. Anecdotally, of the number of people I've heard of living in rent controlled apartments, I've never heard of rent over $500, including 2 and 3 bedroom apartments in primo neighborhoods. Numbers like that are just _absurd_ given what I'm paying for my 1 bedroom in an "up and coming" neighborhood in queens
My question is, then, how would a paltry 2% increase in available units - assuming landlords instantly kick those folks out - cause the rental market to suddenly get that much cheaper?
Eliminating rent control wouldn't do much to lower rents given the relatively small numbers of units. They should definitely end it going forward, though.
Getting rid of rent stabilization, which is roughly half of all rental units in NYC IIRC, would have a huge effect, both positive and negative.
My prediction is that after a few years of adjustment following its end, the average paid rent would be about the same but the average advertised rent would be much lower.
All renters would equally feel the misery of rising rents, so I'd expect the political landscape would be very different with regards to feelings towards building more housing.
There is still good value in places like Miami. You can purchase 1 bedroom "condos" 2-3 blocks from Ocean Drive for <$120k and likely cover your yearly mortgage just with summer month reservations.
I looked into this a bit when I had trouble finding places to stay during Art Basel last year and decided to look up sales data for properties I tried reserving on AirBnb
You're absolutely right but that doesn't mean those small subreddits didn't have an impact, /r/fatpeoplehate and /r/imgoingtohellforthis were increasingly showing up on the frontpage.
Neither of those were small when they started to show up on the frontpage. /r/fatpeoplehate was definitely growing very quickly in the six months leading up to it's demise.
The problem is, when you scrap all of those programs you immediately create more unemployment. There are a lot of jobs supporting social services, the hard part is going to be finding a way to phase in UBI without wrecking the economy.
I suspect one of the side effects is that UBI would lead to a decrease in full time employment and an increase in part time employment. Basically, having a job would become a matter of making enough to live the lifestyle of your choice rather than a matter of having a roof over your head and the ability to eat.
It's one of the reasons I mentioned scrapping the minimum wage when implementing UBI.
The job market becomes much more of a market where work is paid for what it's worth because it's an actual market and employers don't have the undue leverage of simple survival over employees.
Just for once, I want to hear a truly honest conservative politician: "We need to drastically shrink the government, which is why when I'm elected, one-eighth* of my constituency will be immediately unemployed!"
(Not that there isn't a good case for eliminating federal waste; but the reality I never hear uttered in the conservative bubble is that the largest government expense is federal employees and subcontractors.)
By that measure, the "truly honest" progressive politician would say: "we need to drastically raise social program spending and taxes, which will dramatically increase unemployment!"
(Not that there isn't a good case for improving federal social programs; but the reality I never hear uttered in the progressive bubble is that the largest government expenses are social programs like social security, medicare, and medicaid.)
I don't understand your rebuttal, how does increased spending on social programs lead to higher unemployment? Are you suggesting that increased social spending leads to people tactically becoming unemployed in order to gain benefits while not working?
Romer and Romer showed that higher taxes lead to lower growth and vice-versa; the additional taxes required to finance the social program spending will sooner or later lead to reduced opportunities for employment.[1] Others have shown that a larger "social safety net" leads to higher unemployment for a variety of reasons.[2][3] It is also logical that people's aversion to unemployment is proportional to its cost (to them), and that if it is less costly, they will expend less time and effort in the stressful, taxing, and unpleasant task of looking for work.
Yes, a lot of people employed to make unemployed people feel guilty. (And make them jump through hoops.) Inefficient and mean-spirited bureaucratic overhead.
> There are a lot of jobs supporting social services, the hard part is going to be finding a way to phase in UBI without wrecking the economy.
You phase it in by starting it at a low level without replacing/reducing existing programs, and then as you ramp it up you start eliminating other programs.
Except it won't necessarily match their previous salaries. There are a lot of high 5 digit and low six digit incomes in the social services job hierarchy.
Other than the obvious brand association issues that's not really Google's problem. IIRC this is part of the reason why Google changed their licensing agreement to prevent forked SDKs. If you want to ensure you receive timely updates either complain to your phone manufacturer or buy a Nexus phone.
I'm not suggesting that it's Google's fault (well other than forcing OEMs to shove Google stuff down my throat). It's a general complaint about the android ecosystem as a whole. Even Windows 98 got more regular security updates than most android phones.
