Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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:Leading Indicator (Score 1) 119

I don't know if it's all that bleak. I think after a correction we could rebound, and automation will be a part of the rebound. People are scraping by because wages aren't going up. Wages aren't going up because productivity hasn't gone up. Productivity hasn't gone up because we're outsourcing jobs instead of investing in needed infrastructure e.g. automation and modern equipment and factories in the US. Pres. Trump has a shot to fix some of these issues if he can get anything through congress.

Comment Re:This is actually a GOOD thing. (Score 1) 805

Well I don't know about S.F. (I despise S.F. and avoid it like the plague), but in the South bay area there are condos/apartments going up all over the place. This year for the first time since I moved here, my rent went *down*... by $5, but still: it's better than a 5-10% increase. Looking forward to see what happens in the housing market. I guess houses won't go down in price because people in apartments want to move into houses and the supply will probably not keep up. Those of us renting though I think our rents are going to stabilize and maybe go down based on the sheer number of new units coming up.

Comment This is actually a GOOD thing. (Score 2) 805

Prices need to go up to reflect the growing demand and dwindling supply. That is how developers know to build more housing. There are tons of housing projects going on in the bay area and supply will rise steeply in the near-term. I think prices should fall after that. This is the market functioning as it's supposed to, right? Am I missing something here?

Comment scraping by on $160k? Conspicuous consumption. (Score 1) 805

This story is almost the definition of how not to live. People need to live within their means, not reach for unnecessary conspicuous consumption items. I live (comfortably) in bay area on much less than $160k. I have a wife who doesn't work and we live in a 1-bedroom apartment that costs $2200/month. *Before* all my expenses I put away about $25k/year for retirement/savings and have plenty left over for fun. I think a major theme you will find throughout America is that people put money into savings *after* expenses. That's backwards, you need to save first for retirement and unexpected costs, then make a budget to live on with the remainder. It sounds like this worker who feels "poor" on $160k needs a budget. Try cooking simple nutritious foods at home. Go to the library instead of the movies. Buy a high quality and versatile wardrobe. Leather shoes, pants, and a button shirt is an appropriate attire for just about anywhere in the bay area. Keep your current vehicle and maintain it. People who chase after luxury items like fancy cars and watches will *always* feel poor because there is always something bigger and better you cannot afford. Try living with what you have instead of beyond your means. You may find living your life more enjoyable than chasing after what others have.

Comment Re:Fake science/sloppy science (Score 1) 331

In fact, if I fail to reproduce a result, my first instinct is to dig deeper and figure out why. Usually these paths lead to something interesting and unexpected. That's how our knowledge advances: one person asserts one thing, another person fails to replicate it digs deeper and uncovers additional information. That's how it's supposed to work.

Comment Re:Fake science/sloppy science (Score 1) 331

If you can't reproduce it, it's either fake or you were just being sloppy. Either way, it's no wonder ordinary civilians have doubts.

Or there was a hidden variable controlling the results. It's not always simple and reproducing results can be difficult if you don't get everything exactly the same. Just because I can't reproduce somebody's result doesn't mean their necessarily lying or wrong. There could be additional slight differences between what I'm doing and what the original author did.

Comment Re:Leading Indicator (Score 1) 119

I think this last 9 years of "growth" has some major differences with the past. Interest rates are still low which maybe encourages jumping into the stock market. There hasn't been much change in productivity, earnings, or salaries though so it doesn't seem like anything grew except the stock prices. Isn't that odd? I think when the Fed put the banks on life support they just delayed the crash. We've been limping along for 9 years during the slowest recovery ever, and I think maybe it's because we didn't let the crash happen. Maybe these prices are artificial. Maybe it's because the Fed bought up all the bad assets.

Comment politicized summary (Score 1) 401

Certain *ahem* governments are dragging their feet doing anything about it

Let me guess, this is somehow Donald Trump's fault?

Is it because of the oil pipelines that aren't there yet? Which are going to transport oil that we'd otherwise buy from the middle east?

Other than joining the Paris accord (which we are still a part of), what exactly did the previous administration do to address this?

I am sick of issues that have been going on for a long time being blamed squarely on a President who has been in office for just a couple weeks.

Comment Re: It's houses, dummy (Score 1) 491

Hahaha nice job ACs. Data isn't allowed on /. AND YOU KNOW IT!! ;)

Here's a couple papers:

...and a couple articles about the skilled labor shortage. These are good paying jobs waiting to be filled.

Slashdot Top Deals

Every little picofarad has a nanohenry all its own. -- Don Vonada