Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

I see people really liked my submission!

Comments Filter:
  • These is another problem that nobody want to address, and I'll have the feminists all over my back for stating it here. It's not only overtime, but also the fact that most families must go and work with two adults to make a decent living. I'm not saying that I'm against women working and they should stay in the kitchen, but isn't it a fact that a family with stay-at-home-parent (May be the man for all I care) is unsustainable in our society.

    Our fathers managed alone, with the wife at home taking care of

    • Funny about how I was thinking about it last night - that a generation ago, one working adult was generally capable of supporting a family, buying a house and a car, and putting the kids through school.

      Today, despite productivity having doubled in the last 40 years according to Department of Labour stats cited here [blogspot.com], we have a situation where, adjusted for inflation, 2 people working to produce 4x as much are making less.

      There's something really out of whack, and it needs to be addressed. Given that bot

      • I've actually been saying this the last 10 years. Thing is, people don't want to hear it because it's "sexist" or "politically incorrect". I don't care, I say what I think.
        • So what do we do about it? (It's not sexist when both sexes are being robbed).
          • I have no idea... It's an endemic problem and I don't think it is really a conspiracy againt the worker. I might have sounded like that in my original post. I think it is pure market forces that caused this. Think about it:

            • Initial situation: husband works to get money home, stay at home wife (who work, and as my -very wise- father always said, "indirectly saves money")
            • Some free-fought women go to work. This results in a significantly higher income, which is obviously visible to the surroundings. New j
            • It would be very painful and it's a generation that would have to live in poverty until everyone switches. Obviously this won't happen... ever.

              I think the switch is already happening - when people realize that, even with two incomes, they're headed to the poor-house, it's a lot easier to say "you know something, we'll get rid of one job, and that means we save on the second car (or maybe just the excessive wear-and-tear, higher insurance, etc.), we save on child care, we save on clothes and dry cleaning an

              • by mcgrew (92797) *

                The #1 thing that HAS increased way over inflation: TAXES.

                Not Federal taxes, federal taxes are lower than they've been since Truman was President. That sales tax increase you talk of is state or local. Hell, they doubled Illinois' regressive, flat state income tax last year.

                You could always move to Alaska where the oil companies pay the taxes, or Florida where the tourists pay most of them.

                • Moving is really hard, but more and more, it looks like the only option. We already pay the highest taxes in the whole world here, and the budget that's coming down today is introducing new "fees" and other "fee increases" ("see - they're not tax increases, just fee increases, even though everyone has to pay them, even if they don't have any income"). Oh, and we can expect further increases in 2013, 2014, and 2015.

                  It's clearly way past the point of no return - sort of like in Sim City where every tax i

            • by Bill Dog (726542)

              I think your analysis was pretty damn good and right on, and combined with Barb's below says almost everything I think should be included.

              I just think we should blame women more. Okay, I'm being facetious, but the coupla things I'm thinking of kinda do:

              1) The other thing that's helped result in the state-at-home wife being seen as "less" in society is radical feminism (where my personal feminism is "women: do what you want", and Leftist feminism is "women: be(come) like men!").

              2) Basically, women have drive

              • There's also the problem that men aren't "allowed" to be stay-at-home. Even if they're telecommuting, it's not seen as a "real job" by most people.

                I think we're going to see more and more people simply "dropping out" of the economy. I'm not saying they're doing this willingly, but that the economy right now is such that it's leading to a drop in what is known as the "participation rate" - people who are either working or looking for work.

                We've off-shored so many of the entry-level jobs that now there's

                • by Bill Dog (726542)

                  There's also the problem that men aren't "allowed" to be stay-at-home.

                  It would be nice if we weren't so judgmental and weren't so oriented (/goaded) into prying into other peoples' lives. Why are we telling women and men how they're supposed to be? Or races (like how a "real" Black person must talk/act/dress/vote/think) and regions (like all U.S. Southerners are dumb hicks) and religions (like Mormonism and Catholicism are cults)? We're so fucking unenlightened. Progress is getting to the point where we lea

                  • by windcask (1795642)

                    That's because we don't get paid according to a sensible metric. With the technological advancements and productivity gains we've made over the decades, it's struck me before that we ought to be eligible for 30- or 20-hour workweeks. For example, as programmers we can get way farther building a given amount of functionality for an application in a given amount of time than our counterparts could decades ago. But we haven't reaped the rewards of productivity gains because we're paid based on (a certain minimum amount of) time. All the productivity gains have gone to employers and none (excepting being able to work with better and easier tools) to employees. And that's why the 40-hour workweek angle being pushed is missing the mark, because it just perpetuates the wrong thing. We shouldn't be paid for whatever output it is that we can produce in x amount of time, no matter how reasonable that x is. We should be paid per output. And if it was just about whether we got our shit done or not, it wouldn't matter where we did it.

                    You're free to make arrangements like that as a programming contractor. My boss worked in an arrangement like that for 10+ years. More often than not, he lost his ass, and he never had health benefits.

                    • by Bill Dog (726542)

                      Maybe he didn't get paid as he went? My line of thinking about this is more like how developers implement a handful of features ("widgets") each 1- or 2-week Scrum sprint. I would expect to be paid (in full) for these such units of output, in those intervals, under my model of worker compensation here. I'm certainly not in the business of floating my employer money for very long.

                      In fact, if we're gonna get paid the same no matter how many hours we put in, why shouldn't our wages be paid in advance? Why shou

                  • I think we're going to see more and more people simply "dropping out" of the economy.

                    I think a minority of households can actually afford that/sustain that for very long. But I think they're definitely being swept under the rug.

                    I didn't mean to imply that the people dropping out were doing so willingly. I've been tracking the participation rate for over a year, and it's a more reliable indicator of future trends than the unemployment rate, for the simple reason that people who are no longer partic

            • by mcgrew (92797) *

              One thing in my analysis that is wrong is the amount of extra fees we have in comparison to our fathers. They did not have a DSL bill, they did not have one cellphone bill per family member, gas was still within reasonable prices, and many more

              Well, that depends on what generation you're talking about. No DSL bill, but I'm only paying $40 a month for that. Back in the AT&T monopoly, telephone bills were huge compared to today when looked at in comparison to other prices at the time. $15 a month when gas

              • 1 long-distance phone call to Florida (okay, it was several hours, but still!) - $105.00. And this was after 11pm, for the cheapest rates (3/4 off) That was back when a gallon of gas was 59 cents if they pumped it in for you.

                They say talk is cheap, but it sure wasn't true back then!

          • by mcgrew (92797) *

            We could raise the minimum wage to a par with other industrialized countries. But good luck with that, the Republicans are introducing legislation today to lower the rich's taxes yet again. The don't care at all about the economy or the middle class, as long as the rich get get filthier. It's disgusting.

            Bringing back unions wouldn't be a bad idea either.

            • Bringing back unions is only part of the equation. We need to kill "free trade." The deal should be simple - you invest here, you create jobs here, you get free access to our markets. Otherwise, since you're not making any contribution "in kind", you pay duties on all imports.

              Off-shoring becomes unprofitable because then the product doesn't have enough local content to escape tariffs.

              So if companies want to reduce their costs, they need to treat local workers better so as to boost productivity. So t

              • by Bill Dog (726542)

                We need to kill "free trade."

                It won't happen because the elites on both sides of the political spectrum don't want it to happen. The neocons favor big money interests because big money interests give them big money. The Progressives favor big money interests because big money interests give them big money, which they can use to amass big power. So both get what they're most after.

                Even tho you're too Left for me, I'd still vote for you over say a Republican career politician. My sister is solid Left on almos

                • Thanks for the vote of confidence ... even if it is only because the other choices are worse.

                  The worst part is that we have the power to change this, but we don't use it. Nobody is willing to come out and say that eliminating tariffs was a good thing, long-term. Business, unlike people, can shift their resources a lot easier, and play off one set of workers in one country against another set in another country - so in the long term, we've had a real race to the bottom.

                  Henry Ford knew that was a dumb

I have not yet begun to byte!

Working...