Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



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

Comment Re: What do you need? (Score 2) 246

I imagine it would have terrible battery life with that spec

Laptops like those are mobile workstations, meant to be moved from one desk to another. They are usually plugged in at all times. At least mine was when I had one. I personally would love a laptop with a desktop class processor even if it only have a half hour battery life. But I've never found one yet.

Comment Re:Lie or not, you are still off-base. (Score 1) 504

THIS is why Trump won. White votes matter.

This is why Trump won: people who cannot even find a job think they are competent enough to determine which candidate is more likely to improve their opportunities. So much so that they pick the candidate whose campaign promises caused nearly all economists to refute his ideas. Even the republican establishment desired to tone down his proposed tax cuts. These citizens convince themselves the elite (aka educated) are somehow incompetent and that people who haven't been able to keep up with the modern world are somehow more capable. It is quite the delusion. But if religion teaches us one thing is that delusions are often powerful enough to affect the vast majority of people.

The job market for truly skilled older works has never been better. The past three companies I have worked for would create positions for any available skilled worker they were lucky enough to find, because an unemployed skilled IT worker is more rare than a mega-millions lottery winner. The only ones I have come across were only unemployed because of a recent move to a new area.

Comment Re:That can't be right (Score 2) 504

When the recession hit my husband chose to go to grad school. He couldn't find a job where we live so he went back to school. When we had kids, he chose to become a stay at home dad. It would have been too expensive to pay for child care. To say that going back to school or becoming a stay at home parent is "changing society" and has nothing to do with the economy is a bald faced lie.

So if your household was part of the 60,000 households selected for the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS), he would be listed as unemployed under most likely U4-6 unemployment numbers. If he said he would like to be working instead of going to grad school, he would count as a discouraged worker. U6 also includes people working part time when they would like to work full time. Although he wouldn't show up in the U3 unemployment figures, which is by far the most common number discussed.

Try not to accuse people of a bald faced lie unless you have all your facts straight. It makes the rest of your comments seem less credible.

People remove themselves from the workforce because the cost of working is more than the pay. And the repercussions of that decision to be a stay at home parent are incredibly far reaching. When the kids all go to school, what then? After you've been out of the workforce for 10+ years? In case you were wondering, full time (5 days a week 8-5) care at one of the day cares near me is ~$600 a week. $2400 a month. $28,800 a year. If you have two kids that's $57,600 a year. Staying home with the kids is very much an economic decision, not a societal one.

I have two daughters (9 & 26 months old), and with my $3280 in monthly child care costs I assure you I understand the economic decisions that go into paying those bills. Although in my case we are lucky that we can make a decision instead of being forced into a decision since my wife (the lower earner) still makes over $4000 take home each month.

But note I did not say non-U6 related reasons to be unemployed are never impacted by economic realities (they always are), but that they aren't a good measure of economic strength or a poor economy. The vast majority of households do not have two earners taking home $3k+ after taxes, and a few extra percentage points of growth in median income won't change that. If both parents aren't making $60k+ by the time they have children, the economic reality is one of you is probably staying home if you have multiple kids no matter how well the economy is doing.

Comment Meanwhile, back in the real economy... (Score 0) 504

The number of people considered "not in the labor force" increased by nearly 450,000 in November. The total is now at a record high of 95 million.

http://www.bls.gov/news.releas...

The "unemployment rate" that the politicians, economists and media like to talk about is bullshit. It doesn't really mean a hell of a lot when the government can arbitrarily adjust the size of the "labor force" to produce whatever fraction they want. It's not like 450,000 people just decided to retire in November. People fall into this category when their unemployment benefits run out, but they're still unemployed.

IMO, the most relevant metric for assessing the employment situation of the U.S. economy is the employment to population ratio.

http://www.bls.gov/news.releas...

I say it's the most relevant because it can't be so easily manipulated like the other "unemployment rate". Also because the working people, in one way or another, have to support themselves as well as all the non-working people. Of course there are a few who are living on retirement savings, but if they're old enough, they're getting their SS checks too, so they're still being supported in part by working people. That ratio is 59.7% at the moment, which is barely one percentage point above the lows it hit in the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown. The whole "economic recovery" and the "unemployment rate" which has gone from 8-9% down to 4.9% is an illusion. The real economy and real employment situation still suck.

Actually, I think an even more interesting metric would throw kids into the equation. They need to be supported too. In that case, we've got a country where ~152 million people are supporting 320 million people, so the unemployment rate is really 52.5%

Comment Re:That can't be right (Score 1) 504

In other words, 4% less of the working age population is employed.

No, 4% of people over the age of 16 are employed. This is a combination of more students getting higher level degrees, and more retired people. The labor department uses the ages of 25-54 to determine working age participation rates. These have still been declining, but at a much slower pace.

But all of that is mostly irrelevant, because anyone unemployed who isn't caught in the U6 unemployment figures are choosing to be unemployed. Not forced by a poor economy. U6 unemployment catches anyone who is unemployed for economic reasons. Everyone else is choosing to be in school, being a stay at home parent, or whatever other reason.

Workforce participation is a gauge of a changing society, not a measure of economic strength. U1 through U6 unemployment rates are the relevant statistics to look at.

Comment Re:Fake news (Score 1) 504

You don't really have to be a libertarian or a conservative or a "pseudo-skeptic" (whatever the hell that is) to jump down the throat of an AGW proponent who's not an accredited climatologist.

You don't have to be an accredited climatologist to have a credible opinion on the topic. Just as long as your opinion conforms to the research of nearly all accredited climatologists. It is people who believe this consensus is wrong, and who don't have their own climatology PhD or some other similar knowledge level, who deserve to have their opinions fought and ultimately ignored.

You do bring up poorly constructed arguments held by many AGW defenders, mostly because they aren't all extremely educated on the matter. But those are all very minor infractions, as long as the overall narrative of humans needing to do far more to combat climate change is the theme of their argument. The only time these minor arguments even come up is when a climate change denier (or someone being a devil's advocate) is being pedantic.

Comment Re:That can't be right (Score 5, Informative) 504

We need another moderation choice called "Inaccurate".

Even your own link refutes what you are saying. Obama was sworn in on January 20th 2009, so even if you foolishly believe Obama's policies affected the unemployment rate on day 1, his first U6 unemployment numbers (for Feb '09) were at 15.2%. That is compared to 9.3% in November 2016. And if you even give Obama's new policies six months to start affecting the economy, Obama more realistically started with a 16.7% U6 unemployment.

By any measure, unemployment is far better than it was when Obama took office.

Comment Re:so the Je suis Charlie stuff was 100% bullshit? (Score 1) 404

Yes, the whole "free speech" thing was 100% bullshit to begin with!

Charlie Hebdo has published cartoons suggesting that the leaders of Le Front Nationale should be arrested and thrown in prison. They also helped circulate a petition trying to get the party officially banned in France. I don't condone violence, but it was poetic justice that Muslims attacked them after Charlie Hebdo had been so fiercely opposed to an anti-immigration political party.

Slashdot Top Deals

Veni, Vidi, VISA: I came, I saw, I did a little shopping.

Working...