Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score 1) 764

Everyone knew this "nominating process" was rigged from the start. These emails just add more confirmation to what we already knew.

Everyone suspected (not knew) this "nominating process" was rigged form the start. These emails add confirmation (not more confirmation, but initial confirmation) of what we suspected but did not know. It's like Snowden's NSA leaks, which confirmed suspicions but were similarly dismissed on the basis of "we already knew this". No, we already suspected. In the minds of rational agents, suspicion and knowledge are two separate concepts.

Comment Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score 1) 764

Is it possible or probable that some of the damning emails edited or completely faked?

Pretty sure if the emails were edited or completely faked, that's the explanation they'd be going with, as it's considerably more plausible than this "a vote against Hillary is a vote for Putin" joke. The fact that DWS is instead resigning from her role as DNC chair instead of offering such an explanation suggests that these emails might actually be legitimate.

Comment Re: Good! (Score 1) 610

By salary increase, I didn't mean salary increases related to increasing experience, nor nominal salary increases related to inflation.

A labor shortage would be associated with a broad and significant increase in market labor rates in a given sector. This would have nothing to do with individuals negotiating pay raises, or even with individual performance on the job at all, but would solely be a consequence of market forces. And that's not something that is corroborated by any published employment statistics.

Comment Re: Good! (Score 1) 610

And are you sure those salaries are significantly higher than they've been in the past, accounting for inflation?

I suspect you may be mistaking a very normal demand for labor as "more... than most people realize" because so many other fields have been suffering from low demand and stagnant wages.

Comment Re:Too limited a perspective (Score 1) 610

You bring up many valid points. However, it's generally hard to sell a story like "this situation sucks for you, but if you look at the big picture, overall, it's a good thing" as positive. Much like our economy would be stronger if wealth were distributed more equitably, but good luck convincing those who own the wealth to make it rain on everyone else.

I oppose egregious income and wealth inequality, and part of me understands that it would be logically consistent to support it globally, and that would necessarily mean support for globalization, increasing wages for the Asia, Latin America, and Africa, and decreasing wages in the West. Another part of me understands that people generally don't like to give up what they already have. This is why I support policies that, domestically, simply limit the income of people on the upper end of the wealth spectrum, to allow those on the lower end to catch up, as opposed to wealth-redistribution policies that would take away from the wealthy to give to the poor. Similarly, internationally, I support policies that limit the income of the West, to allow those on the lower end to catch up. I believe that such policies are both consistent with the set of morals that most people claim to adhere to while not demanding significant levels of charity from the wealthy.

Comment Re: Good! (Score 1) 610

I didn't suggest a solution to income inequality, as I have no illusions that the problem is one that could be solved by a single individual. Nor did I suggest any way to make "anything better for anyone". I only mentioned, in passing, that I'm not motivated to earn more than I already do, and that one of the reasons for this is that I have no interest in contributing further to income inequality.

I never suggested that stunting my own success would "do anything" for those on the lower end of the income spectrum, though I could posit at least one way in which it might. It would decrease supply of labor, thereby creating positive pressure on wages. Whether this impacts someone on the income spectrum directly, by allowing one of them to take the vacancy created by my absence, or indirectly, by allowing someone in the middle of the income spectrum to take "my" job, then someone else below them on the income spectrum taking their job, etc., etc., the result would still meet your broad "do anything" criteria.

Comment Re: Good! (Score 2) 610

think the main problem is that people are going into jobs that there isn't any actual demand for.

Partially because demand for human labor relative to overall market size is decreasing. Some call this "increasing productivity".

For example, I've actually met somebody who majored in History and then complains that he can't make a living wage. And I've seen many more art majors who think that the world is going to hell because not enough people care for the moronic crap art that most local art districts produce.

I both agree and disagree. I studied math, EE, CoE, and CS. Not because I'm pragmatic, but because I've been a science/technology nerd since I was little. My fiancee did philosophy for her undergrad, something even less pragmatic for her masters. Today, she makes as much as me (working in a field totally unrelated to any of her education), despite being 5 years my junior.

The same is true for some majors that actually paid a lot in the past, and otherwise may still pay a high hourly rate, but there are so fucking many people in that career that your odds of finding steady work are crap. Case in point, lawyers.

Excellent example. Can't really argue against this.

Meanwhile there are lots of jobs that pay no less than $20/hr that can't be automated and have plenty of positions that need filling: HVAC, plumbing, auto and aviation mechanics (good mechanics can easily pull a 6 figure sum, by the way) construction workers, electricians, landscapers, maintenance contractors, and many more.

Going from lawyers to mechanics isn't exactly a huge leap forward. That's the point, that there is no labor shortage, not in the labor market overall. There is a shortage of demand. Some fields are doing okay, like the blue collar trades that you mentioned, largely due to the fact that they're both harder to automate and relatively immune to globalization-related concerns, which helps keep demand high. Other fields, not so much, because if there was, you'd easily be able to point to evidence and say "See, they really can't find people to do $job! They're offering ludicrously high salaries and still these positions go unfilled!", much like you just pointed to those trades, which account for only a tiny share of the labor market, and as such are more the exception than the norm.

Comment Re:Good! (Score 2) 610

I regret my past post in this thread because it is inadvertently offtopic. However, I have seen no evidence that salary growth has been strong in any particular skilled trade. One might argue that some automated-away trades are replaced with new skilled trades, and that this results in an overall larger number of skilled workers and a corresponding increase in income, or that the newly-created skilled labor positions pay better than the previous median skilled labor positions did, thereby driving up the skilled labor median... but that any given skilled worker has seen plenty of salary growth? Not relative to overall market growth, no.

Slashdot Top Deals

"You must have an IQ of at least half a million." -- Popeye