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


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Dumb question (Score 1) 240

by bondsbw (#49123163) Attached to: Study: Peanut Consumption In Infancy Helps Prevent Peanut Allergy

This advice is probably good, assuming folks aren't stupid.

Please people... this doesn't mean finding someone that has the measles, flu, pneumonia, Ebola, polio, whatever, and getting that person to cough on your kids or swap saliva or blood or anything liquid that comes from that person. That is very dangerous and can cause serious health consequences.

No duh, right? If only...

Comment: Re:Nobody is immune (Score 1) 266

by bondsbw (#49101165) Attached to: The Robots That Will Put Coders Out of Work

Absolutely, the more libraries that are available, the less time programmers need to implement behaviors that can utilize those libraries. But even today, when the number of open source libraries are clearly accelerating (and has nearly doubled in the year since that chart), there has been no slowing of programming jobs.

We also have to consider that the appetite for what software developers can create may simply be insatiable.

Comment: Re:But CNN Said... (Score 4, Insightful) 266

by bondsbw (#49099481) Attached to: The Robots That Will Put Coders Out of Work

Something similar can be said about this prediction in general. Before the programmer who is automating job X is laid off, the person currently performing job X will be laid off due to the new program. Programmers will outlast the positions they are automating.

Which is easier, programmers moving on to another automation, or the replaced employee learning a different skill?

If I were the author, I'd worry less about the programmer and more about how this world will handle the potential mass unemployment situation.

Comment: Re:News (Score 5, Insightful) 211

by bondsbw (#49096363) Attached to: 800,000 Using HealthCare.gov Were Sent Incorrect Tax Data

Whoa there. Just because we don't want the government running every little detail about our health care, doesn't mean we want anarchy.

I'll put it the way a friend put it to me: "Regulations aren't bad. Bad regulations are bad." The ACA is a regulation that has good parts but where the bad outweighs the good.

Not only is it bad, but it's not likely to get better. It was passed in such a polarizing fashion that nobody wants to fix it; the Republicans want nothing except to repeal it completely, and the Democrats feel it is so sacred that it should not be touched.

Comment: Re: Technology can NOT eliminate work. (Score 1) 389

by bondsbw (#49085225) Attached to: What To Do After Robots Take Your Job

Considering automation is coming either way, at least my system is reducing the need to automate by allowing wages to go down on jobs that would otherwise be automated away. Is it just delaying the inevitable? Perhaps, but until we figure out a good solution for the day that automation reduces us to less than 50% employment, we should probably delay as much as possible.

a guaranteed minimum income that can be clawed back, say, 50 cents on the dollar for earnings over a certain amount

This is Wealth Redistribution 101, and is what I meant by "redistribute wealth" in my original post. Sorry that I obviously didn't meet your standard of defining every single phrase I use inline.

a guaranteed minimum income that can be clawed back . . . to provide an incentive to work

That makes no sense at all. It's quite the opposite. How is it an "incentive", a reward, for the government to clawback more of your money as you make more? It isn't.

But that's not what such a plan is aiming for. Its chief goal is to require those who have benefited highly from what our society offers (the wealthy) to provide a safety net for those who put forth effort and those who take risks. This provides no more incentive to become rich, because becoming rich is incentive enough.

Comment: Re: Technology can NOT eliminate work. (Score 1) 389

by bondsbw (#49082457) Attached to: What To Do After Robots Take Your Job

I saw this first-hand when one of the largest hardware chains did a strategic bankruptcy, laid everyone off, and the next day, offered them their former jobs, at less than the minimum wage, with a government subsidy to make up the difference. It was pretty bad walking in there and seeing staff I knew all of a sudden working for less than half what they used to make. And of course, when the subsidy ran out, they got fired and others were hired, and THEY collected the subsidy.

I'm not seeing how that situation applies here. If the government subsidy is increased to the point that it at least provides the same wage as before, then the workers would take home the same amount. They get paid directly by the government, and the subsidy doesn't run out.

Also, some people have no choice but to survive purely off the system. There are plenty of retirees in that position, people who have lost everything due to illness, people who can no longer work because of an acquired handicap, etc. So, your plan offers them zero.

Sure, I didn't specify but this plan is for only those who can work. The current system, or comparable system, can be put into place for those who cannot work or other special circumstances.

It's dumber than dumb, because it fails to create ANY quality jobs, and reduces everyone to serfdom, because that's what happens when businesses see subsidies - they are VERY good at gaming the system.

The subsidies are directly from the government to the employees. Corporations never touch them.

Sure, the jobs aren't all that productive. But people who are unemployed have exactly zero productivity anyway, so total productivity is increasing even if it's not by a large factor. Also consider the benefits to society... we get people off the streets, reduce crime by reducing poverty, and put currently-unemployed people into a job where they have the chance to gain experience and learn new skills (which can turn into future productivity).

Comment: Re:Technology can NOT eliminate work. (Score 1) 389

by bondsbw (#49081863) Attached to: What To Do After Robots Take Your Job

In this system I proposed, they would do some kind of work. The work might not be worth much but it will be worth at least a little to some employer. Society benefits by getting them off the streets.

Also, being exposed to work on a daily basis may entice the employee to improve skills for even higher wages. This plan gets them in the system where they at least have the chance to get experience doing more and more until they are truly productive.

Comment: Re: Technology can NOT eliminate work. (Score 1) 389

by bondsbw (#49081795) Attached to: What To Do After Robots Take Your Job

If you tie it to hours worked, then it no longer functions as an income redistribution plan, since those who work fewer hours under your scheme get less. It's not my fault if you don't understand the mechanics of current income redistribution schemes now in operation, which involves a base amount, clawbacks for people earning over the base amount, and is not tied to hours worked.

I'm not talking about a current system. I'm talking about a new strategy.

Fine, whatever, you obviously understand what I'm going for.

Your scheme not only fails the goal of income redistribution - it's also incredibly easy to game. . . .

This has been brought up in another comment off my first one, so I redirect you there instead of repeating some ideas about handling this situation.

unless your original proposal included that someone who is unable to find work gets nothing

So in one paragraph you propose that this will fail because people will create zero-productivity "jobs" to get the government subsidy, and in the next you propose it will fail because people will somehow still be out of jobs?

One of the goals of this idea is to reduce unemployment, hopefully to zero. There's probably a sweet spot where the government provides lower subsidies based on time worked, so that people won't be able to survive purely off gaming the system. I've discussed this elsewhere, feel free to have a look.

Also, feel free to enlighten us with ideas for improvement instead of repeating issues discussed in other threads.

Comment: Re:Technology can NOT eliminate work. (Score 1) 389

by bondsbw (#49078439) Attached to: What To Do After Robots Take Your Job

That's all around a good point.

One improvement is to limit the government's distribution to 40 hours/week.

Another improvement could be to reduce the amount provided by the government. Instead of what we currently consider minimum wage, it could be a smaller amount (say $5/hour) that is too little for someone to live on without some additional compensation. Employers would need to provide at least $2 or $3 per hour to make it worth people's time to work.

The exact numbers would be produced by economic analysts and statisticians and other people who are much, much smarter than I am about this kind of thing. I would imagine that the numbers could be calculated so as to minimize unemployment, minimize government subsidies, and maximize wages.

The longer the title, the less important the job.