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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Make it easier to hire people? (Score 1) 436

by Kohath (#48644043) Attached to: What Happens To Society When Robots Replace Workers?

That sounds like generalized complaining. Are you arguing for anything, or just saying everything anyone might think about trying is off-limits because ... slogan time ... "race to the bottom"?

Isn't it possible that we don't need The Davis Bacon Act, which was enacted to protect white union members from having to compete with black workers on highway construction projects? Is "race to the bottom" really a counter-argument to the re-examination of The Davis Bacon Act?

Comment: Re:Make it easier to hire people? (Score 1) 436

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) 436

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) 436

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:The Future is Surreal (Score 3, Insightful) 171

by Zak3056 (#48629047) Attached to: At 40, a person is ...

A few years ago I looked at the numbers and realized I've been officially a woman for the majority of
my life. OK, yeah, I'm one of those. One of those who is very good with Linux kernels, MySQL, VoIP, and
various other technologies. Deal with it. I'm me, I like being me, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

You're 53 years old, posting as AC, and feel the need to announce that you're a transsexual and dare anyone to have a problem with you? FWIW, I don't think it's the world that has a problem with you--it seems like you have a problem with the world.

Comment: Re:what an embrace means. (Score 3, Insightful) 216

by Zak3056 (#48621789) Attached to: What Will Microsoft's "Embrace" of Open Source Actually Achieve?

Back in the day, Microsoft viewed open source and Linux as a threat and did its best to retaliate with FUD and patent threats.

then in 2013 Microsoft suffered a loss of more than US$32 billion

MS had an after-tax income of over 21 billion dollars in 2013. No idea where you're coming up with a $32B loss. Ballmer was a horrible CEO, but the biggest problem was that MS continued to make money--LOTS of money--while he was destroying the company's value, which made him look absolutely great on paper.

It's not so hard to lift yourself by your bootstraps once you're off the ground. -- Daniel B. Luten

Working...