Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Literally in the Summary (Score 1) 289

One more thing: Matthew 20:1-16 may shed some light on this situation:

Matthew 20:1-16New International Version (NIV) The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard 20 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay them a denarius[a] for the day and sent them into his vineyard. 3 “About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5 So they went. “He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. 6 About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’ 7 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered. “He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’ 8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’ 9 “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius*. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’ 13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’ 16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.” Footnotes: * A denarius was the usual daily wage of a day laborer.

You get paid according to the agreement you had with your employer. If you don't like the terms of your employment then you need to renegotiate-- you have no right to complain about what you agreed to.

Comment Re:Literally in the Summary (Score 1) 289

You're assuming that "maternity leave" means there's an understanding that you'll come back to the organization. Their understanding of it is that when you have a kid you can go home and raise the kid and the organization will keep sending you paychecks for a certain period and that they also leave the door open for you to come back if you want.

In order to make traction with them you must convince them that the situation is the former (coming back to work is a mandatory part of taking paid maternity leave) rather than the latter (coming back to work is totally optional).

But I think you'd lose because legally there's nothing that reinforces the former or punishes the latter.

So unless they explicitly agreed to the former arrangement (coming back to work is mandatory) then they're absolutely morally correct to do the latter (come back to work if they feel like it or just quit).

Furthermore: isn't it immoral to force someone to work for you if they don't want to? Isn't it immoral to refuse to pay someone money that you said you would; to honor your agreement/contract with them? Why should it be immoral to quit working for someone? Why should it be immoral to take paid leave?

With these considerations I don't see how you can argue that it's immoral to take maternity leave with pay and then quit the job if one so chooses, if those were the terms for their employment, any more than you could argue that it's immoral to quit any job or to take any paid leave.

Comment Re:Unlikely (Score 1) 236

"extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, and we don't see that here."

1. By definition any kind of discovery is extraordinary.
2. The extraordinary is precisely what any kind of science is about.
3. If you think there's such a thing as absolute proof of anything then I'll refer you to Descartes and other philosophers. If you think there's such a thing as reasonableness or "proof" in the common sense of the word then you should also agree that "extraordinary evidence" isn't a thing-- there's only evidence and denying it is being unreasonable if you don't have an alternative hypothesis + evidence of your own.
4. I fully encourage you to be skeptical and unreasonable and go construct your own hypothesis and see if you can get some counter evidence.
5. Who gets to decide what evidence is extraordinary enough? Oh, I get it now, this "extraordinary evidence" thing is just bullshit and moving of the goal posts.

Comment Re: Ontario, largest subnational debtor on the pla (Score -1) 521

Wealth is an abstract concept.

Is it? I'm pretty sure that things like swimming pools, mansions, beach front property, houses, cars, and dollar bills in a wallet are all pretty concrete and tangible.

In nature noone owns anything.

1. Why should we value "the way that nature does it"? Nature also doesn't do science.
2. You're wrong anyway: animals routinely fight over control of territory, mates, and food.

Its society which gives rise to law which gives rise to property and money which gives rise to wealth.

It's society which gives rise to law which safeguards property and money and wealth. You can still have stuff in the absence of a government or a society.

if its not working for most people society has the right to decide to try another way.

Nobody owes you anything. Get a job or work for yourself, hippie.

Given that more and more economic value is being created by machines whose income accrues only to the owners of the machines and not to entire society (though without society we would still be hunting and wearing skins so no machines would have been invented); we may need a new system.

Careful, your jealousy and greed are showing. I would hate for you to lose your self-righteous moral high ground.

A star trek kind of society where people's basic needs are taken care of by the output created by machines (which are owned by society as a whole) and people work for prestige and luxuries.

1. I, for one, am going to need more than an "attaboy" for showing up to a day job no matter how lax the rules are.
2. You know that Star Trek isn't real, right? If you want some kind of a system such as that depicted then you need to prove that such a system is possible in the first place. You go do the science and the economics and then get back to us with the results. In the mean time I won't vote for your cockamamie schemes being forced down our throats.

This can work in a society where 90% of the economic output can be provided by machines and you only need humans for 10% of the creative jobs.

You pulled that completely out of your ass. Like I said before: you go do the science, crunch the numbers, do some experiments and then get back to us. Until then keep your wild-eyed rhetoric to yourself, comrade.

For such jobs a human who doesnt have to work but wants to do the work will be much more productive.

Oh they'll be more productive, eh?
You're making a lot of assumptions about a lot of people you've never met.
In other words: prove it.

The humans who dont want to work will be bored and eventually stop reproducing so the problem will solve itself over 5-10 generations in a humane manner.

More assumptions. Prove them.
Also, as far as I can tell, it's the exact opposite in this country: the lazy and indolent are having children by the dozens while the intelligent and productive members of society (middle class and higher) are having fewer and fewer children.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.