Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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: And as an employer... (Score 1) 136

by tlambert (#49352495) Attached to: Millennial Tech Workers Losing Ground In US

It's not that hard to figure out.

4 jobs at 40 hours equals 5 jobs at 32 hours.

And as an employer, my per-employee loading costs go up by 20%.

Tell you what: Go to a single payer health care system, roll unemployment, disability, and retirement into a Basic Guaranteed Income program, and define away poverty because with a BGI, it doesn't exist, and I'll happily split up jobs into as many pieces as you want, down to 20 hours/week/worker, because it won't cost me extra to hire more people, as long as the same number of hours get worked.

Until then, thank your government unfunded mandates and offshoring for current unemployment levels (26%+, according to World Bank numbers, since DOL unemployment statistics only count people receiving unemployment insurance, and vastly underestimate the number of unemployed).

If you want to fix the offshoring problem, I can help with that, too, but you really need to abandon the TPP, modify NAFTA to eliminate the trans-shipment loophole, and eliminate MFN status for China (for starters; there's other things that will need to happen on top of that, but it's the minimum foundational bedrock necessary to move forward).

Comment: Re:I find it interesting we are bashing tech (AGAI (Score 1) 150

The bullying comment was specifically in reference to the press bullying tech over something tech is already more cognizant of than any other industrial segment.

In terms of personal bullying, I think a lot of people who enter tech were bullied when they were younger, which has driven them towards technical pursuits, where they are less likely to have to associate with the general population. Perhaps, by implication, more young women should be bullies to address the STEM imbalance? I would not suggest that we should do that, even if it would be successful, since the tradeoffs are simply not worth it.

I maintain, however, social isolation leads to more STEM careers than it does to retail sales positions.

The whole "brogrammer" myth, which I think arose from the movie "The Social Network" and the Winklevii in particular, is pretty much a myth. The only fitness nerds I know in tech these days are fitness nerds because of reaction, not because that's the way they've been their entire life. In fact, most of them do it because they are using it as a means of life extension.

Comment: Re:Actually... No. (Score 1) 150

Most businesses wouldn't have any major issue spending that little extra money;

Then why aren't they? The ability to operate at 66% capacity with one person out sick, instead of at 50% capacity? Also, assuming you temporarily 1.5X the hours of the remaining two workers, you operate at 100% capacity, instead of 50% capacity? The answer is that the math does not work out like that; the per employee costs overwhelm any potential benefit to the employer.

if they did, they wouldn't if they were slightly more efficient or if the CxO's got a few million dollars less.

People keep saying this, but if you divide the number of employees into the salary of the CEO of McDonals, it comes out to ~$8.65 *PER YEAR* per employee. In most places, where prevailing McDonalds wage is higher than that, they can pick up more money by picking up an our of work.

In terms of "slightly more efficient", they can do that without hiring more people, since the efficiency must come from business process practices anyway.

Comment: I find it interesting we are bashing tech (AGAIN) (Score 1) 150

by tlambert (#49351831) Attached to: Win Or Lose, Discrimination Suit Is Having an Effect On Silicon Valley

I find it interesting we are bashing tech (AGAIN).

If you look at the Fortune 500, there are 5.2% women CEOs.
If you look at the Fortune 500 tech companies, there are 8% women CEOs.
If you look at the Fortune 500 non-tech companies, there are 2.8% women CEOs.

(1) Tell me again how this is a tech problem, and not a systemic problem.
(2) Tell me again that tech is not on the right trajectory, compared to all other businesses.
(3) Tell me again how tech is not more progressive than every other business sector.

By all means, lets go back to bashing tech, the only place where this social issue is being redressed in any meaningful fashion. I'm sure there will be absolutely no backlash from beating them up over something they are actually doing something about, while giving everyone else who is doing *NOTHING* about the issue is given a pass.

It's not like tech is full of people who are familiar with how bullying works... the actual bullies *ALWAYS* get a pass.

Comment: Actually... No. (Score 1) 150

by tlambert (#49351769) Attached to: Win Or Lose, Discrimination Suit Is Having an Effect On Silicon Valley

Give everybody 2m/y off and work 30h/w, then we will have less unemployment and more efficient businesses.

Actually... No.

You are incorrectly assuming that the per-employee cost for hourly employees to the business for 3 x 30 hr/wk is the same as for 2 x 45 hr/wk. It's not. There is cost loading to the business in the form of unfunded government mandates, such as employer provided medical insurance, workers comp, social security, and so on.

As a specific example, there's a social security tax cap, and employers must match employee contributions. What this effectively means is that if I have 2 employees, my business is out of pocket (2 x CAP) in matching funds, and the rest of my income is mine, whereas if I have 3 employees, I am out of pocket (3 x CAP). This is generally true of all capped max-out-of-pocket employer matching.

Similar capped match values include 401K matching contributions, Medicare.

Other per-employee costs include state unemployment tax, federal unemployment tax, workers compensation insurance, paid holidays, vacations, and sick days, profit sharing plans, direct pension contribution, post-retirement health insurance contributions.

This ignores non-shared resources, like office space for individual employees simultaneously at the business, business equipment costs per employee, furniture, electricity for their computers, and so on.

So it costs a hell of a lot more for a business to employ 3 people than it does for them to employ 2 people.

Your math does not work.

Comment: Re:You are missing the obvious point! (Score 1) 150

by tlambert (#49351693) Attached to: Win Or Lose, Discrimination Suit Is Having an Effect On Silicon Valley

Then explain why an American worker today can be more productive than his or her predecessors, yet paid a substantially smaller fraction of the proceeds from his or her labors?

They're not paid a smaller fraction of the proceeds.

(1) The proceeds are "after taxes, medical, and other costs", all of which are higher

(2) A substantial amount of the productivity increase money has gone into subsidizing cost reduction to the eventual consumer. Think "everyday low prices at Walmart"

Thank you for being more productive, comrade; lettuce is now cheaper, and even though you personally don't eat lettuce, know that your efforts are appreciated by those who do.

Comment: Re:Geoblocking is highway robbery (Score 1) 129

It's good to see that the bandits and bridge trolls trying desperately to maintain artificial scarcity and artificial economic friction may soon be disarmed.

Now let's just make that global.

That way *all* the factories can go to China and *all* the call centers can go to India! Yay!

Comment: Greece just called... (Score 1) 129

The most expensive digital media market wants the prices found in the markets in regions that have totally different income brackets and standards of living?

The general idea of EU is to unify these "totally different income brackets and standards of living". There are special huge help programs for poorer member states.

Greece just called... they say they're waiting for their credit approval to go through...

Comment: Re:Publicity stunt? (Score 1) 338

by tlambert (#49333901) Attached to: Feds Attempt To Censor Parts of a New Book About the Hydrogen Bomb

So the author submits a book which he doesn't believe is legally required to be submitted.

You agree to some pretty draconian rules when you get a Q clearance. One of them is submitting any future publications for review, with the understanding that they will be censored of any classified material. At issue here is whether or not information which is already public should be considered classified, just because they're too lazy to declassify information which has already been disclosed.

In this particular case, not only was the information they are upset about disclosed, a lot more information was disclosed on top of it. I remember the particular article which disclosed it, since it was in an August 1982 journal discussing how to build X-Ray lasers for SDI using exactly the technology under discussion. Instead of putting a baffle between the halves of the device and your fusion fuel at the second focus, at the second focus you put an EMP target that then uses tin and lead tubes containing wires to use the EMP to power the X-Ray lasers. I think I have a copy of it around my house (somewhere), because it's the same issue that announced energy break-even for hot fusion in Tokamak 2, which I though was a pretty cool thing.

So the info has been out there at least 32 1/2 years.

His problem is that he has prior restraint agreements with some pretty nasty teeth in them.

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes. -- Dr. Warren Jackson, Director, UTCS