Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Mental health workers? (Score 1) 385 385

by Duhavid (#49853367) Attached to: Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs To Computerization?

Sorry, very busy.

What to make it better?
I have seen universal income bandied about.
There is nothing outside ideology and greed that stops us from making some kind of "a bit above subsistence" living possible. Lazy? Stay there. Ambitious? work at stuff not automated. work at stuff that is not profitable, but interesting.
I know there are arguments ( that I have some sympathy for ) that people work best when motivated, but you should also look at the many advancements made by those who's motivation was simple curiosity, and able to pursue that curiosity because they didn't have to worry about putting food on the table.
Make the people being automated out of jobs stockholders in the companies doing the automation.
Those are two ideas. Ideologically unappealing, perhaps, but ideas. I'm sure there are others.
Yes, there are costs, and the structure we have politically would make these difficult.

On exploitation, when you use power/force to coerce behavior/choices.
It can and does happen between individuals and between different strata of society.
It may not be a direct "gun to the head" situation.
Jobs are not something that capital *has* to provide.
I get that, I understand there is a market, and that we can distort it, even while meaning well.
But without jobs *here* or something changing this economy wont go anywhere.

The whole foreign workers thing is power misuse.
And an example of market distortion.
I have met many H1B's, none were better than I, most were about average, so I find the "they are *so* talented" argument not compelling ( are there *some* in that category, sure, not most, though )
I know that anecdote is not data, but if you say "all x are y", if I find one x that is not y, theory disproven
Intended as such, sold on a lie. Power used to move jobs done profitably here to others more profitably. ( nothing wrong with profit, or even more profit, provided you earn it )

Ideology, yeah, it gets in the way.
Pragmatism would be awesome. Humility would be excellent.
No one knows everything, most especially those who think they know everything.

"As to the welfare tangent, did you have any further commentary?"

Yes, but the margin of this internet is too small... And I am too tired and have too much work to do. Including a stupid move on the part of my boss I am getting support calls on....

Comment: Re:First Post with good info (Score 1) 51 51

by Duhavid (#49839987) Attached to: How Overhauling IT Was a Life-Saver For the American Cancer Society

"You don't have to know the ins and outs of router configuration, or maintaining Exchange servers to understand who in your organization knows what and to consult them on technical matters"

Kinda, but if you don't have ( or get ) the beginnings of a clue, you wont be any good at knowing who in your org *really* knows what.
Then you will consult the wrong people, and manage your way to somewhere between mediocrity and disaster.

In tech, there will usually be some "glad hands" around who kinda know, then the antisocial ones who really know.
Will you take the time to draw them out and engage, or will you go simple?

Also, when hiring, will you be able to determine who can do and who cannot?
Or will you hire on charm?

Comment: Re:Mental health workers? (Score 1) 385 385

by Duhavid (#49822395) Attached to: Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs To Computerization?

I see your point, there is much to it.

But while a person should be proud of the calluses on their hands, the heart is a different matter. It is important, I think ( and I am not saying you haven't ), to keep some human warmth while recognizing all the very important points you have made.

Comment: Re:Mental health workers? (Score 1) 385 385

by Duhavid (#49822055) Attached to: Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs To Computerization?

"Ironically your post was very hard to parse... I think you made an effort to be organized but it didn't make sense because it was hard to separate your point from mine from whatever else you were doing."

    Apologies. How can I do better?

"As to the point of a business, you're not addressing the fact that we've gone through serious economic disruptions before. You "the sky is falling" argument fails to recognize that we've gone through these things before."

    We have. I think we can do better than we have in the past. And in some ways, we do.

"The pattern is that you have a generation or so where things are very hard and then it gets a lot better once people have adapted."

    True, but it is rough on those people.

"My prediction is that this transition will be similar to past transitions."

    I agree.

"You must present an argument why this transition can't simply be toughed out like every one before it."

    It can be. My point is should it be. I believe we can do even better than we are.

"As to there being inequalities... name any time in history where there haven't been? That's normal."

    Yes, there will be inequalities. I agree there pretty much have to be.
    To what extend do we allow the haves to abuse the have nots?
    What do we hold up and celebrate? We regard wealth hugely and good character poorly.
    In other words, what societal norms do we allow/reward?

"As to threats to livelihoods... in previous cycles people would occasionally starve to death. What you consider a hardship is historically nothing."

    Historical nothing, yes. But much to those doing the suffering.

"As to the way I fell about it and callusness... I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying it is good or that I don't care. I'm saying rather that you can't stop it and that you shouldn't even try because you can't."

    It is my belief that the only thing we lack is the will to do something.
    I wont say it isnt hard, there is much to making it happen

"This change is happening. We can soften the blow with welfare so that people don't suffer that badly. But we can't stop the change."

    I believe we could stop the change.
    I also believe that, properly managed, this change could be awesome.
    It would be working against entrenched power, so, very difficult.

"It is a inevitable as death and taxes. It is happening."

    I do not see any likelihood that it will not happen. I think you are very right.

"As to arguments against welfare... I can argue for it to be efficient and I can argue that only those that actually need it, get it. But would I argue against it existing at all? No. I think for those that literally cannot survive without it, it should be provided."

    Yes. I wasn't sure if you were one of the "my decisions may have pushed you into hell, but my tax dollars cant be used to save you from that" crew.

"If I have any criticism for welfare it is that it is used for political reasons often as not. That is a politican will bribe people to vote for them or create a dependent population that can be relied upon to vote for them."

    Maybe. I know ( and was, thru my mom ) people on welfare.
    The ones I know ( yes, anecdotal ) seem to be "rock ribbed republicans" and not very liberal.
    But, that proves nothing. And it doesnt speak to the motivations of the politicians, so...

"You'll also get situations where people could support themselves if they lived in an area with a lower cost of living. The welfare often as not allows people that don't make enough to live in an area to live there anyway. That distorts the market. It lowers income in the area by providing artificially cheap labor. This makes it further hard for other people to live there that are working. It also inflates property values. It also encourages economic activity of types and levels that are not efficient in those areas."

Welfare distorts the market and the economy in various areas as well as distorts the politics.

I am okay with helping those that need help. However, I would like to do so in a manner that did this as efficiently as possible with as few negative side effects as possible.

You can agree with this I think?


Comment: Re:Mental health workers? (Score 1) 385 385

by Duhavid (#49817917) Attached to: Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs To Computerization?

"The point is not to give you a job.

I am always amazed that people make this specious association. They think the whole point of all this industry and agriculture etc is so some guy can collect a pay check.

I mean... Really?"

    So, what is the point?
    If it is "the economy" then:
    No, companies are not in business to give you a job. They exist to make money for owners and stockholders.
    Jobs come as a side effect of wanting to produce things to sell to support the money making process
    But consider, there is a need to sell these items. To make purchases, buyers need money.
    Most get their money from jobs.....
    Without those jobs, they will buy less/nothing
    Fewer jobs means less money to be spent on goods. Lower purchasing, less revenue.
    Fewer jobs with more people chasing them means lower wages. Lower wages, less purchasing, less revenue.
    Prices are not set according to production costs, but on "what the market will bear".
    Lower production costs will only result in lower prices when the demand curve supports the business making more that way.

"Okay, yes you have fewer people but you also lower costs when you do that which allows for more production. Consider the wealth we have today versus 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 150 years ago, 200 years ago... etc. We have more stuff per person then we did before. More people can afford luxuries than before.
So yeah... a given factory is going to need fewer people. But that is going to lower the cost of producing that good which means that you either afford more if it because production will be higher or you'll have extra luxuries on top of that."

    Some will have extra luxuries. Those who missed the lottery and don't have an out that gives them an income wont have the luxuries (or the basics, possibly)

"The trend over time is very positive."

    For some

"We're going through a rough patch and the people running around saying the sky is falling are acting like fools."

    You see people with their livelihood threatened, or people seeing the livelihood of others affected having a reaction to this, and they are fools?
    Their reaction may not be entirely effective, but is there an effective way for them to react? Would anger be understandable if they dont see one?

"Yes, some people are going to get fucked. That happens when we go through these phases. Some people are structurally unemployable. In past cycles these people would often starve to death or be driven into crime."

    Callous. Would you feel that way if if was you or yours having to go through this?

"So this cycle most of those people are going on welfare for life. Sucks but it beats starving to death."

    Then you cannot argue against welfare...

Comment: Re:Mental health workers? (Score 1) 385 385

by Duhavid (#49817699) Attached to: Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs To Computerization?

You have a great point about us entering a phase of instability.

I think there are two points,

Your "adapt or die" stand, while having some truth to it, comes across as callous.
There is a huge amount of personal human tragedy and pain involved, Saying "adapt"...
It wont work for everyone.
And the reason for entering this phase seems to be simply that those who already have much have more, while costing many who have little more than they can afford...

We as a society *can* do something about this. We, collectively, are deciding to do this,
to allow it. Those with more/effective control move us closer and closer to this.
It is always easy to say "that is easy/harmless/ok" when you don't have to suffer the consequences.
But a certain amount of negative emotion seems understandable towards those who cause this, and toward those who cheer-lead for it.
I know you are not cheer-leading this.

Comment: Re:$70000 is poorest? (Score 1) 272 272

by Duhavid (#49791291) Attached to: California Is Giving Away Free Solar Panels To Its Poorest Residents

"According to your logic, the people who do the most for the poor are the poor, which is a paradox since they have little to no resources to begin with."

But that is what happens. Because they know what it is like to be poor, they know how hard it is, so they help each other.

"And I'm not sure how we expect the most wealthy to give a greater percentage of their income when we're already taking a greater percentage of it through progressive taxation."

I would be most happy to trade places with them. Take that severe burden from their shoulders..... :-)
And the rates for the wealthy have been coming down. I dont think going to a socialist 90 percent tax for the wealthy is called for, but the current crying and whining coming from the wealthy is... Well, I am having trouble with a word. Pathetic, callous, stupid.

"But let's go to the numbers. According to the IRS's 2011 numbers, charitable giving is on a bell curve. Apparently, the most charitable are on the income extremes []."

Did you mean "...isn't on a bell curve..."

On the lottery, 1111% agreement. Teenage me, when I saw that announced, said "this will end badly...".
So, they have people thinking more about some random bit of luck to lift them out of poverty.
They sold it on the notion that the funds would be used to supplement the pathetic amounts going to some schools. ( has it gone to schools, and has the general fund amounts been kept where they were, or were they lowered? )
So, preying on people's hopes and dreams to lower taxes is what it looks like from where I sit.

Comment: Re:$70000 is poorest? (Score 2) 272 272

by Duhavid (#49791155) Attached to: California Is Giving Away Free Solar Panels To Its Poorest Residents

"I take issue with the notion that I should have to support those that are unwilling to work for an income,"

For those truly not willing to work, fine. In my experience, most are willing, eager even, to work.
It is much more difficult to get a job than you know.

"especially those who sit on unemployment because they refuse to take work they consider beneath them"

Beneath them?
Or not sufficient in pay to get the bills paid. ( got a job, now, loose the house.. )
Or damaging to your C.V. ( yes, I am working in a 7-11/bowling alley/etc, but I am a really great coder, hire me! Does that fly?
I recall my last out of work experience ( thank God, a long time ago... ), having recently before been working as a programmer, contract ended, it was *hard* to convince the hiring manager I was worth a shot. And that was *before* the "send everything to India, pay less!" spree...

And it is much harder to get unemployment benefits than you know, having watched some friends go through it.

Comment: Re:Great. Let's sit here and wait for the next wav (Score 1) 422 422

by Duhavid (#49698475) Attached to: Ice Loss In West Antarctica Is Speeding Up

Just how much money is there in monitoring how ice sheet change in mass?
And how much money is there in the industries that lead to increases in CO2?

You put forth that money can lead to unethical and immoral behaviour...
Im going to suggest it might be found in other places than scams to fund ice sheet mass change monitoring...

Gravity brings me down.