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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment W/o a future job as an economic endpoint for this (Score 2) 541

why fund it ? Perhaps because educated people make smarter decisions? Worldwide uneducated people out-breed educated people at a rate of about 4:1. Surely a populace less interested in breeding, because they understand the indirect costs, is a benefit worthy of funding higher education for all? If nothing else, I would argue that art (literature, dance, acting, etc. ) benefits from so called higher education. Education, like travel, is broadening; it opens vistas of knowledge and experience to people that go beyond the requirements of the mundane "future job", allowing them to contribute to society in non-material ways.

Comment Re:Supply and demand (Score 1) 587

Your point about culture is spot on. I've worked with contractors from India (and in India) and they are some of the nicest, most agreeable people I've ever met. I believe it's a cultural adaptation that allows them to survive in a population of almost 2 billion ... the pressure to "get along" must be enormous. They'll even agree with you when you are wrong. While agreeableness is great for social interaction, it's a shitty quality when it comes to engineering the best solution to a problem. And that in a nutshell is the difference. Great things are usually born of disagreement, and mediocrity is often the result of compromise.

Comment Re:Already exists under other names (Score 1) 917

ok ... but aren't multiple, redundant programs, means testing, drug testing etc. wasteful of administrative dollars? How much of the budget actually goes to feeding, housing and clothing the unemployable and underemployed (like Walmart workers who are the largest employer of SNAP recipients.)? Answer me that.

Comment Re:Better options are available than UBI (Score 1) 917

It's an interesting approach ... but i see a few issues. To make it work ... specifically this part "undertaking work of public benefit at the minimum wage." You need a minimum wage that a single person can live on at 35 hrs per week... And by "live on", I mean eat healthy, have a warm safe place to sleep in a proper bed, have sufficient climate appropriate clothing, provide the incidentals of life(toiletries, laundry detergent etc), have enough to pay for communication and transportation costs sufficient to be employable and pay for healthcare. Even using very conservative numbers (8k housing, 3.6k food, 0.5k clothing, .2k incidentals, 1.2k trans & comm, 3.2k Medical = roughly 17K) the federal minimum wage would need to be set at least $2/hr more than it currently is. And that assumes they never take any time off working. And if they have to work all the time just to get the minimum income they need to survive, how is that significantly different from debt peonage? So then ... let's raise the minimum wage to $15/hr and set it to automatically adjust with inflation. This increases earning to the point where people on the jobs program can actually live fairly well and save money..... But how does it work for people incapable of working? Wouldn't you need 2 programs and all the bureaucracy needed to determine which program a given person falls under and all the costly checks to ensure no one is cheating the system?

Slashdot Top Deals

The first sign of maturity is the discovery that the volume knob also turns to the left.