Slashdot Mirror


Gates Warns of Software Replacing People; Greenspan Says H-1Bs Fix Inequity

dcblogs writes "Bill Gates and Alan Greenspan, in separate forums, offered outlooks and prescriptions for fixing jobs and income. Gates is concerned that graduates of U.S. secondary schools may not be able stay ahead of software automation. 'These things are coming fast,' said Gates, in an interview with the American Enterprise Institute 'Twenty years from now labor demand for a lots of skill sets will be substantially lower, and I don't think people have that in their mental model.' Meanwhile, former Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan believes one way to attack income inequity is to raise the H-1B cap. If the program were expanded, income wouldn't necessarily go down much, but it would go down enough to make an impact. Income inequality is a relative concept, he argued. People who are absolutely at the top of the scale in 1925, for instance, would be getting food stamps today, said Greenspan. 'You don't have to necessarily bring up the bottom if you bring the top down.'"

17 of 516 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Greenspan's right by gnoshi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Extending on Greenspan's idea, you can reduce inequity by having the top 0.01% take all the money from the remaining 99.99%. All that demonstrates is that having low inequity as your sole target is stupid.

  2. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  3. Greenspan? by PPH · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I thought he'd been laughed out of Washington DC following the mortgage securities fiasco.

    former Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan believes one way to attack income inequity is to raise the H-1B cap

    Econ 101 - Supply and Demand. You just increase the supply and prices go down. So, what does Al think the 'bottom' is? H-1B visas for tech workers hit the middle class. The bottom is the fast food, dishwasher, gardener, etc. That's the people who wade across the Rio Grande. Fast food restaurants and farms don't go through the H-1B process for labor.

    How about we import some lower priced talent for the executive offices? That'll fix inequality. Seriously, I've seena number of situations where corporations on the edge of failure were sold to foreign firms and are now being run quite profitably. Same factory, same tools, same unions. Better managers.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Greenspan? by careysub · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I thought he'd been laughed out of Washington DC following the mortgage securities fiasco.

      ...

      As long as you are saying what serves the interests of Big Business and people of fabulous wealth, inherited and otherwise, you will always be a respected commentator whose words command solemn attention, and be widely reported.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  4. Re:Fuck that by s.petry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Exactly! Anyone that can't see how his logic is broken should ask a friend to read it to them while they polish their red tipped cane. Increasing H1B imports, when companies pay these people less than they do college graduates, helps the US economy how? An executive getting a big fat bonus check by keeping 100 US citizens from working does not help out our economy, and _can not_ help our economy.

    This line of crap is almost as pathetic as the "jobs American's won't do" crap. Both of those are simply excuses to pay foreigners less money than a company would have to pay a US employee due to minimum wage laws. Just Google "h1b visa abuses in the US" and read the first few results.

    I won't bother Billy Bashing in this, his comments were not so bad for a change and I just bashed him yesterday for claiming Snowden was no hero.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  5. Living in 1925 kinda sucked by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There have been a _ton_ of advancements that become available when you have money. Medical Science has advanced to the point where we can do maintenance on the human body and improve it in general. This can be as simple as your kid's braces, or as complex as resurfacing your hip so you can walk without a cane in your 50s.

    Also, what's "necessary" is defined by employers. If I'm going to function as an office worker I'm expected to have a car, cellphone, college education, etc. If I don't have these I become unemployable... I lose access to all of the benefits I described above.

    Also, why in God's Green Earth are we talking about regressing to the 1920s? When did we give up on progress? When did poverty become an acceptable condition? When I was a kid we'd already sent a man to the moon. Keeping kids out of poverty seemed simple by comparison...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Living in 1925 kinda sucked by ATMAvatar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also, why in God's Green Earth are we talking about regressing to the 1920s? When did we give up on progress? When did poverty become an acceptable condition?

      It became acceptable (to those making the statement) around the time it became obvious that you cannot concentrate the wealth of the world much more than it already is without placing most of the population into poverty.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    2. Re:Living in 1925 kinda sucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It became acceptable (to those making the statement) around the time it became obvious that you cannot concentrate the wealth of the world much more than it already is without placing most of the population into poverty.

      To be more clear: you cannot accumulate wealth into a small group of people faster than the economy grows on the whole without invoking a zero sum game. The current leeching of the economy by the wealthy is faster than the economy is growing which is only sustainable through wealth transferral instead of wealth creation.

    3. Re:Living in 1925 kinda sucked by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No it's not. business owners need to be forced to pay honest wages. Paying people wages that are so low that you can not live even in a squalor home is dishonest (minimum wages below $10 an hour)

      Then you get even more dishonest business owners that pay their book keeper $12-14 an hour. That person went to fucking college and just because she is a woman you think you can pay her a pittance? Sorry, but being a business owner is not about being rich, it's about following a dream and making a living. you DO NOT forsake your employees so you can live more comfortably.

      Right now the environment is ripe for employee abuse and has been for the past 10 years. Luckily I work for a guy that treats the employees right. he lives like the rest of us do, he gives guys raises every 6 months and even gives us all a profit sharing bonus every year 2 weeks before Christmas.

      Want a good corperate example of Greed? Comcast.

      Comcast has so much money they want to buy Time Warner.. WTF? why not put that money into Comcast and upgrade service and infrastructure as well as employee pay levels for the bottom 90% in the company? Every single customer of comcast's HATES the company, the quality of service, and the quality of the product. I have never found anyone that has said "I love comcast, they have the perfect everything!" The only reason they make money is they hold monopolies in 99% of their markets.

      Fix the infrastructure, fix the service, fix your employees, fix the business. THAT is honest business, not what corporate america is doing.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  6. Re:Greenspan's right by Cryacin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here's a better idea Mr. Greenspam. How about we make your pay equal to everybody elses? (My insulting consulting invoice is issued by the way)

    --
    Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
  7. Just how out of touch is Greenspan? by Guppy06 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "If we're not going to educate our kids, bring in other people who want to become Americans," said Greenspan, in arguing for an increase of H-1B workers.

    H-1B is not a path to citizenship, apparently by design. Green card holders can say "Screw you, I quit" without deportation, which is not what companies want when they reach for H-1B's.

    In the context of income inequality, Greenspan put the H-1B program in his light: If the program were expanded, income wouldn't necessarily go down much, "but I bet you they would go down enough to really make an impact, because income inequality is a relative concept.

    H-1B's are competing for the bottom. Executives don't bring in indentured servants to be their own replacement, nor are meaningful numbers being placed into "rock star" slots (rock stars can command perks like actual green card status anyway). H-1B's only drive down the wages of the bottom, not the top, exacerbating wealth disparity.

    1. Re:Just how out of touch is Greenspan? by jafac · · Score: 5, Insightful

      who knew, Greenspan was a proponent of what is essentially "soft-slavery".

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  8. Re:What a disingenuous jerk by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, that is not quite true and quite frankly points out what kind of a bullshit artist Greenspan is. Basically the 1% of the 1920 owned a lot of capital assets like properties, farms, business, shares, jewellry, even what are today vintage auto mobiles and these would all have adjusted to inflation accordingly and they would be exceedingly wealthy based upon today's standards and today's property and business values. So Greenspans statement is 100% total crap.

    When you own the means of production, the means of generating wealth you are never poor, until it is stripped away from just after a bloody and ruthless revolution.

    What these asshats are alluding to is the truly disposable workforce. When you are no longer of use to psychopathic capitalism you are disposed of, parked in concentration camps for the unemployable, only let out for chain gang style mass labour projects. These are very evil people as they make no mention of reduced working hours with increased pay against productivity gains, more time for leisure and free education, with the contributions to society spread out to take into account automation.

    All these fuck heads see, is automation, ahh no expensive work force more profits for me. With no concept of who they are going to sell the shit to, other than that workers must accept significantly reduced status unless their existence is sponsored by an employer. These people are a real and present danger, a threat to humanity.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  9. Re:Move. by artor3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Holy shit, how can people be so clueless. You think an unemployed programmer should just pack up his family, ditch his mortgage, and move to fucking Vietnam to work for a dollar a day? When is he going to find the time to learn a language, while he's struggling to feed his family? How's he going to afford the trip? What makes you think his chosen country will even allow him to immigrate in the first place? What makes you think there will even be jobs there, if the problem is technology making human labor unnecessary?

    No, you know what he can, should, and will do? He'll fucking murder you, and take your stuff. If your world view relies on the underclass laying down and dying for your convenience, you're going to be in for a rude, and fully deserved, awakening.

  10. Re:Greenspan's right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    it could be extended to minimising inequity by making almost everyone dirt poor.

    You do understand that IS the point of all this?

    In case it hasn't been clear to you, there's been a class war happening all along, with the precise goal of disempowering 99% of the population and (re)turning society to a kind of neofeudalism.

    This statement from Greenspan is basically his way of hanging a "Mission Accomplished" banner across the bridge of his office.

  11. Re:Move. by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This kind of Robin Hood-style violence does not belong in a civilized, developed society.

    The society in question -- one that has decided that its lower classes should just lay down and die, because they are no longer economically productive -- is not a civilized, developed society.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  12. Re:Greenspan's right by buybuydandavis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can anyone make any sense of what he was saying?

    The solution to income inequality is to import more labor supply and further depress wages, but make those who *own* the businesses that hire them even richer? What? What is that guy smoking?