Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Having a laugh? (Score 2) 51

That is not literally true, not in labor markets and not in virtually every other market. If employers could offer anything they wanted, they'd pay me $1/year. They do not, they offer much more than the minimum wage for something like 97% of hourly jobs. Salaried jobs have no minimum wage and yet we don't get poverty wages. Clearly the same supply/demand curves which control other markets are at play here.

They offer you more than minimum wage because of the existence of a minimum wage. Otherwise they'd offer you not $1 per year, but just enough to afford to return to work when added to whatever welfare they can squeeze out of government and society. Minimum wages do apply to salaried jobs as well. Check out what you can earn in countries that don't have them, and then thank a union. Or throw off the shackles of the minimum wage and get into a type of work that really doesn't have one, gig work, and let us know how that supply and demand thing works out for you.

That's been the story of industrialization since the 1750s. Every productivity enhancement has been decried by people claiming it will lead to waves of unemployment and dark satanic mills. And yet the numbers do not support this fear. Standards of living and wages have been more or less monotonically increasing for two centuries and for the most part, anyone who wants a job has one. It's almost as if improving productivity leads to rising wages and economic growth.

The Luddites died in grinding poverty with all indications being that they were correct, it was their grandchildren who got the new jobs that came along as a result of the automation that ruined their grandparents. Wages and standards of living have been stagnant for a half-century at this point. There are people frantically applying to hundreds of jobs they're well-qualified for and not getting so much as an interview. Over 100 people are applying to each job opening these days, and likewise it takes over 100 job applications for an average applicant to get a job (both rather conservative estimates). If improving productivity led to rising wages, why are we not earning 40% more for the same number of hours people worked in the '70s? Why has going from mainframes and dumb terminals to present-day computing added approximately jack shit to ~90% of workers' pay?

Gee, my current employer is hiring fast and furious, as are many others.

Good for you! Especially if you work in tech. Sucks for the people who aren't part of your anecdote though.

This has been argued back and forth for at least a century. We're not going to come to an agreement here. All I'll conclude with is that some regulation may have value and there's also a reasonable chance regulation is harmful.

Look up the history of the ones you don't think may have value and you'll learn about the workers who fought and/or died to get the laws in place that keep you from experiencing the same thing, which you now take for granted. Or if that's not enough, maybe you should experience a 996 work schedule in China, work alongside a nonexistent/laughably low minimum wage in a Caribbean country, or do some dangerous work in a Nigerian e-waste mine to get a taste of what happens without all those regulations.

Comment Re:Nobel laureate...yeah... (Score 1) 102

Chile seemed to be making something similar work with early-'70s computer technology, until Henry Kissinger decided that democratic socialism was a threat worse than Soviet communism and had the regime overthrown and replaced with a murderous right-wing dictatorship:

https://thereader.mitpress.mit...

Comment Re:This isn't really a big problem. (Score 2) 125

Absolutely not. The US has a massive amount of room. And more people means more ideas, more new thoughts, more efficiencies from economies of scale, and more comparative advantage.

While the planet could support more people with properly managed resources, this idea that innovation comes from pulling the genetic one-armed-bandit enough times to hit a few jackpots and pop out a few Einsteins is ludicrous. Einsteins aren't born, they're made and enabled. If you want new ideas and innovation, support and empower the people who are already there to do it. We already have lots of people who could generate new ideas including lots of potential Einsteins, they just don't have the time or conditions to make a breakthrough like he did. They're scrapping away at a shitty job that eats all their time to make an already rich person richer instead of having the time to study bleeding-edge physics etc. in their generous downtime at a chill job in a patent office. Or they've gained the skills to make breakthroughs but are wasting them on making Facebook more addictive or developing Grok.

Comment Re:This isn't really a big problem. (Score 2) 125

Per capita GDP isn't even a good measure because it isn't a measure of average wealth at all, it's a measure of total national income with no regard for how big the average person's slice of the pie is at all. I think what you're looking for is median household income or median personal income.

Comment Re:Personally, I think (Score 3, Insightful) 125

It's not society, society doesn't care too much about population growth, it's the economic system. Capitalist economic systems require infinite compounding growth in a finite world (so that capitalists can at any time turn their money into more money without doing any work), and so far the main driver of that growth has been population growth.

In a related problem, most pension/retirement schemes work like a long-running intergenerational ponzi scheme that will only avoid collapse as long as the next generation is bigger or at least wealthier than the last, and now we have two generations that are smaller and poorer.

Comment Re:You mean realists? (Score 1) 211

I heard one libertarian argue that instead of having roads anywhere that a private entity doesn't feel like building one, people should just be driving offroad 4x4s through unmaintained mud trails, like in some of the more remote parts of Russia. Which is ideologically consistent at least.

Comment Re:Software should be "simple and disposable ... (Score 3) 48

If you have a complex problem to solve, then your solution must address that complexity. Simple and complex are opposites.

Everybody would like to have simple answers to complex questions, but that can't happen without the loss of information.

Important points to live by, not just for software. The drive to find simple solutions to complex problems rather than accepting and managing complexity causes a lot of harm and waste.

Comment Re:Easy fix (simple and disposable and easy) (Score 2) 48

That's fine for hobby programming, but sadly companies now do all their PHP coding with frameworks, either Symfony or, more commonly, Laravel. I'm guessing because they think it makes their developers more like replaceable cogs. No need to demonstrate real coding proficiency, just experience with the chosen framework.

Slashdot Top Deals

Any programming language is at its best before it is implemented and used.

Working...