Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Having a laugh? (Score 1) 52

You might want to read up on how economists talk about supply/demand graphs. They have to offer me enough to make taking the job be better than my next best alternative (which might be sitting on my duff flaming on the Interwebs). If I have no skills and few opportunities, yes, that's going to be starvation wages. But the vast majority of people do have options so any employer has to out-bid the next best choice.

Without a minimum wage the floor drops out of your next-best-choices and large chunks of the population end up on starvation wages. This isn't a theoretical issue you need to estimate with graphs, it can be seen in practice in jurisdictions with extremely low or nonexistent minimum wages, or even in first-world gig work.

I do not believe that is the case. Standards of living consistently rose in England throughout the industrial revolution. I just read a book by Don Boudreaux and Phil Gramm which has an entire chapter documenting this.

That makes sense, you don't believe that's the case because you just voluntarily and uncritically filled your head with a warm load of grifty bullshit "documented" by a couple of right-wing lobbyists. If you'd ever read a real history book focusing on workers' standards of living in that period, the way that the propaganda book you hopefully didn't pay for flew in the face of it would've set off some alarm bells. Here's something to get you started: https://www.crei.cat/wp-conten...

Did you live through the '70s? I did. Life is immeasurably better now for everyone but the homeless guy on the corner. The wage stagnation myth is just that created by twisting statistics (e.g. ignoring transfer payments).

Look at the median home price vs. median salary in the '70s vs. now and the homeless guy might look like the only person who hasn't been totally hosed. It's the same for education costs, two things conveniently left out of inflation measures. Accounting for transfer payments doesn't change the picture either:

https://equitablegrowth.org/sl...

Tell me about it. I got laid off from my cushy high-tech job and spent 13 months trying to land a new gig. I lost count of how many applications and interviews I went through. High tech and software job markets are in a world of hurt right now.

So you know, and at the same time think that most anyone who wants a job has one right now? How does that work?

I have no doubt working in a Nigerian nickel mine sucks ass. But just like other sweatshops going back to the aforementioned dark satanic mills, you have to ask, why are people working there? Because it beats the alternative. The long term answer is to make Nigeria and Haiti (to pick two examples) more productive so they generate wealth, not make hiring people so expensive the employers all leave. And that's my point: yes some regulation can help some people in the short run. If it makes hiring people too expensive relative to their output, the jobs will leave and everyone left behind will be worse off.

People were often forced into the earliest mills because the (once popular) alternative, farming the commons and telling business owners to fuck off with their hellhole factories, was conveniently taken away. The alternative that people are choosing work over is usually not a lower-paying job but the threat of homelessness and starvation often worsened by the very business interests they're forced to work for.

Productivity alone won't do anything for workers, both the industrial revolution and the last half-century in the first world are proof of that. If you're worried about employers leaving for cheaper labor costs, good luck competing with every Chinese political prisoner.

Comment Re:Having a laugh? (Score 2) 52

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:S Mode (Score 1) 24

I imagine that the first question after installing Linux would be "Now how do I sync albums that I bought on the band's Bandcamp page onto my iPhone?" As far as I'm aware:

- iTunes for Windows uses the Apple Mobile Device Service driver to sync over a USB cable, and drivers don't run in Wine.
- libimobiledevice on Linux can write files to an iPhone but not the music database that the included Music app uses.
- Though the VLC app can play music from files, nothing but the included Music app can make playlists containing both purchased music and rented music from the roommate's Apple Music family plan. Not all bands are with a label that's on Apple Music.

I left Windows on her laptop and turned off S Mode.

Comment S Mode (Score 5, Informative) 24

Many new computers with Windows 11, such as a Lenovo IdeaPad that my roommate received as a birthday gift, come set to "S Mode" and will not run applications from outside the Store. There is a way to disable S Mode permanently on a particular PC. This shows a sequence of alert boxes whose wording may be scary to particularly nontechnical users such as my roommate.

Comment Re:Some of the tariffs are about fentanyl (Score 1) 159

The claim was that trade deficits were the closest thing to an emergency that the President could find as a justification. I explained that the fentanyl use epidemic was the other justification, which some people might have an easier time accepting as an emergency.

Comment Some of the tariffs are about fentanyl (Score 1) 159

As I understand the executive order abolishing de minimis entry, the tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China aren't based on trade deficit as much as on these countries' failure to cooperate in preventing fentanyl and fentanyl precursors from getting smuggled into the USA.

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 Brazil and 3 others are hotbeds of scamware (Score 1) 89

If you can run any app you want, but you have to explicitly allow an app to access any content from any other source app on a per-source basis, to access passwords on a per-password basis, etc., then there's approximately zero danger in running the app

There is danger to the user's bank accounts from running an app that was made for the primary purpose of enabling financial scams, social-engineering the user into draining their life savings. The previous featured article states that the initial set of countries where Google plans to put this policy change into effect (Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand) are hotbeds of scamware distributed through unknown sources.

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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Know Thy User.

Working...