Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:If they're going to do this... (Score 3, Interesting) 134

Interesting (to me): One of the side-effects of my Universal Social Security proposal is excess demand--a labor shortage. The fix is re-defining full-time working hours as 26-32 hours per week, meaning everyone gets dropped to 4-day work weeks. This happens because it's a trillion dollars cheaper than current strategy.

In theory, with or without salary adjustment, dropping everyone's work time by 20% decreases their share of labor pay. That is to say: to make 1,000 things takes 4 people, or it takes 5 people each working 80% as much. As long as your entire economy changes at this ratio and wages don't change relative to each other (they can increase, decrease, or stay the same, but all by the same percentage), whatever salary you end up with is suddenly only capable of buying 80% as much.

In practice, I'm pretty sure we have a lot of part-time workers (I've looked this up before) and a lot of slack time. On one hand, part-time workers would experience no change, so neither their income nor the influence they have on price would change: the stuff they make wouldn't become any more expensive. On the other, many people would work the same amount and spend their work slack-time as leisure-in-earnest instead of non-productive office hours: instead of being restricted by the facade of office hours, you'd be outside work enjoying the time you're spending doing nothing useful.

That's actually a bigger problem. It means cutting hours without a salary cut raises the price of certain goods for part-time workers, but not for office workers; while cutting hours with a salary cut raises the price of certain goods for full-time workers, but not part-timers. The first case is regressive onto the poorer, and benefits the middle-classes; the second is harder on the middle-classes, and doesn't directly-benefit the poor. The second case is arguably better, since cutting working time in this way definitely cuts buying power in total, so someone has to get poorer, and you've restricted how much that happens and to who; but it has obvious undesirable issues.

On the other hand, the end result would probably be about break-even for the middle classes in total (when you include the Universal Social Security benefit), plus a 3-day weekend every week, so ... eh?

Comment Re:Less Power For You (Score 1) 137

Doing more with less is how technology works; and technology comes with discovery, not mandate.

Natural gas burned in power plants and transmitted as electricity produces much more light out of LED lamps than natural gas piped to gas lamps. They couldn't just up and switch to electricity and LED lamps 50 years before Edison and Westinghouse, even if the Government told them they had a week to figure out how to produce more ten times light with half as much gas.

(The chief effect of all this is less labor: you use 5% as much gas to run lights, that means 5% as many human labor-hours invested in running lights, and that proportion of society--not those particular people, but the constant inflow of people becoming working-age adults to replace the retiring seniors, at least at least--can now become doctors and engineers, since we don't need them mining for gas. Again: you can't just dictate there shall be more doctors and fewer farmers, and the halved farm workforce shall work to produce twice the food output at half the price; it won't work.)

Comment Re:Nonsense. Hillary supporter lying 2 cover is FA (Score 1) 301

Name the Biology professor. And what are your qualifications to determine that he is incorrect for what he actually states?!

HIV certainly wouldn't "cause" AIDS if it isn't involved in the mechanisms that result in the deterioration of the immune system. Correlation is not causality.

I'm supposed to believe a Harvard degreed Medical Doctor with a specialization in Internal medicine for 25 years is a nutjob for expressing her "expert" opinion, because of a zero like you?

Comment Re:Nonsense. Hillary supporter lying 2 cover is FA (Score 1) 301

"Libertarians believe you shouldn't go to prison for refusing to vaccinate your children."
    You will not go to jail they just can not go to public school.

And that is pretty much the accepted legal standard throughout the country. Name one court case where the parents of an unvaccinated child was able to compel a school district to accept the child.

Only a shill would fail to realize that this one difference of opinion does not make a candidate unsuitable to be elected PotUS.

Let me guess: You one of those elect "Hillary for Queen". Yes, she's a bad liar, yes we'll invade Syria if she gets elected, yes, there's nothing "fishy" in trying to conceal your gov't communications from gov't law, so lets pretend the other three candidates are equally bad. Well, there's a good case to argue Trump would not be a good PotUS, but you're going to have to better than what you're doing to convince voters here that Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are incompetent, evil degenerates.

Slashdot Top Deals

"'Tis true, 'tis pity, and pity 'tis 'tis true." -- Poloniouius, in Willie the Shake's _Hamlet, Prince of Darkness_

Working...