Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Why the comment from the fake news outlet? (Score 1) 217

While what you're saying is true. There is an actual issue with the current form of H1-B reform. That is to say *all* job positions regardless of talent level must consider "Americans first" in a vague way. That ambiguity is what's troubling and what leads to a lot of potential problems as it's left to the executive branch to enforce and interpret.

Let's say you have a dire need for data scientists and good ones. POTUS can now have his agencies force you to hire less talented people instead of those more talented from abroad, or ones who are here in the US as students who are seeking jobs.

So while we do need to address the issue of H1-B farms, the current proposed solution is kludgy, ill-defined, knee-jerk and probably won't have the desired effect...which is kinda inline with all things Trump.

Comment Re:Sad to see Trump... (Score 4, Insightful) 381

Because many recognize that just one number like "50k jobs" isn't the only number that matters. How much is the State giving away in freebies of taxpayer money to subsidize these jobs? How permanent are these jobs? If it's a large subsidy for temporary (like construction) jobs which will dry up long before the return-on-investment has been reached, the State would be better off just hiring these workers themselves to do something more long-lasting instead of having Foxconn skim off the top, make a killing in profit with very little cost, only to layoff these workers in a few years.

The problem with Trump and most of his campaign is that he's promising a quick, easy solution to a difficult problem: how do American workers stay competitive in a stage of increasingly easier global shipments? This is yet another example of something that feels good in the short term but can be a terrible deal in the long term.

Comment Re:engineers salaries (Score 2) 336

According to Glassdoor:

https://www.glassdoor.com/Sala...

~240k

So Cook gets ~37X what a seasoned engineer gets. That's relatively low compared to most large companies. In fact, ~9M/year is damn low. Marissa did little for Yahoo other than spend other people's money to buy failed ideas and she still got roughly 20M/year.

Comment Re:Good for China (Score 1) 117

Renewables aren't quite (but will very soon be) more profitable than coal/oil in terms of cost/MW. China has been dumping money into solar/wind/nuclear for almost a decade now, long before it was even remotely economical. They play the long game because their population is tired of being able to only see 2 feet in front of them and their leadership knows climate change has human causes and severe negative consequences.

Renewables just happens to be reaching economically advantageous levels nowadays thanks, in large part, to their efforts at expanding the economy-of-scale over the last decade.

Comment Re:What do you mean, "WHY"? (Score 3, Interesting) 225

I've studied the TPP. That anyone who is in favor of American exceptionalism would be against it is mind-blowing. The U.S. and Japan basically bullied a bunch of smaller but up-and-coming countries to play by Westernized rules with a lot of exceptions that American and Japanese industries don't have to follow those same rules as swiftly (think agriculture, which is exempt from a lot of the TPP tariff reductions).

It basically extends U.S. corporate hegemony to China's doorstep. And before you go all "but but corporations are greedy!" you want American corporations to do well more than you want a Chinese state-sponsored company to do well.

Comment Re:Be careful how hard you squeeze (Score 1) 324

I agree that the question isn't borders. If you are in Texas, northern Mexico is more "local" than NYC. But in either case, China is not local.

But you're arguing for placing pre-emptive barriers on what you think are "the right level of local". I'm saying, if you have open trade borders and price in the cost of externalities (like a carbon tax), then the market will work itself out in terms of where the "right level of local source" is.

The part that's never zero is called "structural unemployment", and was mentioned in the part that you cut. People between jobs, people who are moving, etc.
But unemployment-because-you-cant-find-a-job is not god-given, and in fact in various countries around the world there have been periods when this unemploymend was zero.

"the upcoming onslaught of automation" - the 60s called. They want their argument back.

I don't know if I buy that. Employment participation rates vary from decade to decade. They vary because people give up on finding a job, not because they don't want one. You may be right that those *with no choice but to have a job* (breadwinner for the family) parts of the population who are systemically unemployed can reach 0, but that's not full employment. Moreover, it's not consistent. You're always going to have periods lasting as long as a decade where some giant shift (such as globalization, or automation) will wipe out entire job sectors. So even if your argument is "those jobs will eventually be replaced", you need *some* solution to the decade-long vacuum those things created. And I don't think impeding progress Luddite-style is the answer. Nor do I think impeding progress "anti-trade" style is the answer either. It's more economically efficient during those times to do something like UBI.

How we are all caught in the Silicon Valley mantra and the Venture Capitalist religion. Most of the really large and powerful companies in the world are not called Google and Facebook. They are energy companies, food companies, and a dozen others. Trade and technology matter, but you buy an iPhone every year while you buy food every day.

This isn't a Silicon Valley idea. Notice I didn't just say tech, I said tech and trade. This is well established amongst economist. All those energy, food, etc. companies are the "trade" part; they find ways to distribute resources more efficiently. Do this simple mental experiment: what if every city was to produce their own crops of every type instead of importing/exporting from other areas? Would that be more or less efficient? Expand that idea to a global scale and you have your answer to why shipping from China or Brazil for certain things can be better.

Slashdot Top Deals

/* Halley */ (Halley's comment.)

Working...