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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Make it easier to hire people? (Score 1) 275

by Kohath (#48643615) Attached to: What Happens To Society When Robots Replace Workers?

We should re-examine (not necessarily "cut") parts of these:
- The Davis Bacon Act
- The Lacey Act
- The National Labor Relations Act
- The Americans With Disabilities Act
- The Controlled Substances Act
- The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
- The Family and Medical Leave Act
- The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
- The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII
- The Employment Non-Discrimination Act

That's just a starting list. There are numerous state and local laws that make employing people more expensive and risky.

Robots are not covered by any of these acts. Companies choosing robots over people are not burdened by the cost of complying with these acts. You can't argue that a minority person won't be able to get a job because of discrimination when you're also arguing they won't be able to get a job because robots took away all the jobs.

It's interesting that you're worried about worker protections based on problems from the past, often things from 50 or 75 years ago. Meanwhile, the topic is about some distant future where no one can get a job due to automation. Why can't we re-examine laws when circumstances change?

Comment: Re:Yet another clueless story on automation (Score 1) 275

by Kohath (#48643299) Attached to: What Happens To Society When Robots Replace Workers?

As automation lowers the cost of producing goods toward zero, a smaller wage should buy more goods and living standards can improve even as wages go down.

(Of course, this whole discussion is silly because automation is as limited as anything else. But if you believe in automation replacing almost everyone, then you have to also accept that it will drastically cut the costs of goods.)

Comment: Re:Make it easier to hire people? (Score 1) 275

by Kohath (#48642741) Attached to: What Happens To Society When Robots Replace Workers?

I'm not sure how that is an argument for artificially keeping people unemployed between now and whatever distant future you imagine. Wages could be higher if non-wage costs associated with employing someone or doing business were lower -- of course this depends on the supply of people to do the job.

Is there really an argument against considering changes to laws to help employers employ people?

Comment: Re:Tough call (Score 1) 1050

by Kohath (#48582761) Attached to: Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?

They already forcibly herd all the kids together in the government schools to infect each other with diseases and bring them home to infect the adult population. If you want to keep the government out of your body, then you need to get it out of your family, away from your children, and out of your business.

Comment: Re:America, land of the free... (Score 1) 720

by Kohath (#48543925) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Can a Felon Work In IT?

In the US, the employer would be sued because defending against lawsuits is expensive. So you sue anyone with money. Then you make a deal to drop the lawsuit in exchange for some money -- more than the $0 you deserve, but less than it costs the employer to have his lawyers fight you in court.

You don't need to have a winning case.

In the US, the employer probably has liability insurance that will pay most of the money. I would guess the liability insurance company probably requires the employer not to hire felons -- or charges a much higher premium to employers who hire felons.

* * * * * THIS TERMINAL IS IN USE * * * * *