Companies are supposed to act independently and not collude. Should all of them deciding to pay the same thing for the same job in order to prevent an arms race not be considered collusion?
Also, I reject your idea that a company only pays the value of an employee to the company. There are companies that make a million a year and there are companies that make billions a year. A company making billions pays much the same for a developer as a company making millions because that is what the market dictates. You cannot tell me that a larger company will hire an exact number of developers relative to their profit. A larger company will take advantage of economies of scale, and hire less developers relative to their profit. I guess I need to see your sources because it does not seem to be the case that employees increase linearly in line with a company's profits at all.
If a company needs 10 more people and they are unable to attract those people through status quo, then a fair and balanced market offers them two choices: make the compensation package offered more attractive in order to get those people, or to go without. Logic dictates if they can hire H1-Bs are the same 'status quo' rate then it alleviates pressure for them to raise salaries due to market forces. I challenge that it is happening in these studies. Perhaps the average wage did not go down due to the hiring of foreign workers, but what I do not see them account for is that perhaps wages would have gone up in the absence of this source of workers.
Besides, you don't really need a study to see what is happening. Companies are saying they cannot find enough workers, yet wages are not increasing. That is completely contrary to how market forces are supposed to work. If it is not H1-B's suppressing wages, then something else is overriding the market that I was supposed to have a fair shake in.
They seem to be suppressing the surge in wages that was supposed to happen when the baby boomers left the workforce. Unless that hasn't happened yet? Most people my age told me that we would be in high demand once the baby boomers started leaving and that has not manifested. A lot of the baby boomers have already left the company I work for, and wages have not gone up; they just fill the demand with foreign workers.
Not to mention, you get into the workforce and you have large corporations doing everything they can to keep wages down. Free internships, H-1Bs, etc etc.
Because everyone who gets into a car knows what their chances are of surviving. And look at all the people not afraid to drive. I'm not sure how you could say self driving would cause less than 35k accidents, they haven't even tested them on ice yet.
Why do you think this situation is 'normally fatal'? Any $80K car is going to have air bags and a proper crumple zone to protect the driver. Heck, his foot may have slipped off the gas and slowed to a stop in the ditch.
If the car had realized that no one was responding and then executed a safe pull-over I would buy that autopilot could help *in this case*. However, this is too close to call. In a normal car, the driver may have been killed instantly or his foot may have left the gas pedal and slowed to a stop, or he may not have fallen asleep at all. In this case, a car kept driving for 7 minutes in which case a person could have been hit. The police had to intervene so they may have been injured as well. It's really just trading one crappy situation for another.
Considering the amount that humans drive every year, that's a drop in the bucket. Autonomous driving is nowhere close to being able to drive 3.22 trillion miles a year and only kill that many.
I think you have that backwards. The problem isn't that businesses don't have a search engine to use. The problem is that being highly ranked on any search engine besides Google is not going to make you visible on the internet. This means, in effect, Google controls what people see on the internet. If you don't mind having one company control how other people see your business then fine, but I can understand why that could be considered undue control.
We are being told that these cars add up to safer driving overall. Given that they will be significantly less per capita than manual cars for many, many years to come, this means in fact they will need to be significantly better than humans to achieve this lofty goal. If I am to drink the kool-aid, at least explain to me how automated driving companies plan to make this happen, because if they aren't even away from "perfect weather planned routes" yet then they aren't doing very well.
To me the UBI model is fairly straight forward and solves these problems. If you don't work you get UBI only and can buy basic things. If you do work you get UBI + a smaller salary and can afford luxuries. As withholding surplus resources from the needy, countries with government medical systems work out those kinds of issues all the time.
My wife has had cancer twice.. Don't talk like "delayed gratification" is a weakness of character. If you are responsible and working hard, you should be able to enjoy your current personal life to a certain extent. The illness has opened my eyes to living for the day and enjoying it.
Slashdot Mirror
Companies are supposed to act independently and not collude. Should all of them deciding to pay the same thing for the same job in order to prevent an arms race not be considered collusion?
Also, I reject your idea that a company only pays the value of an employee to the company. There are companies that make a million a year and there are companies that make billions a year. A company making billions pays much the same for a developer as a company making millions because that is what the market dictates. You cannot tell me that a larger company will hire an exact number of developers relative to their profit. A larger company will take advantage of economies of scale, and hire less developers relative to their profit. I guess I need to see your sources because it does not seem to be the case that employees increase linearly in line with a company's profits at all.
If a company needs 10 more people and they are unable to attract those people through status quo, then a fair and balanced market offers them two choices: make the compensation package offered more attractive in order to get those people, or to go without. Logic dictates if they can hire H1-Bs are the same 'status quo' rate then it alleviates pressure for them to raise salaries due to market forces. I challenge that it is happening in these studies. Perhaps the average wage did not go down due to the hiring of foreign workers, but what I do not see them account for is that perhaps wages would have gone up in the absence of this source of workers.
Besides, you don't really need a study to see what is happening. Companies are saying they cannot find enough workers, yet wages are not increasing. That is completely contrary to how market forces are supposed to work. If it is not H1-B's suppressing wages, then something else is overriding the market that I was supposed to have a fair shake in.
They seem to be suppressing the surge in wages that was supposed to happen when the baby boomers left the workforce. Unless that hasn't happened yet? Most people my age told me that we would be in high demand once the baby boomers started leaving and that has not manifested. A lot of the baby boomers have already left the company I work for, and wages have not gone up; they just fill the demand with foreign workers.
No I think you're missing the point. Someone could have easily died in *this* accident. It is a miracle no one did.
Not everyone wants to go into nursing.
$XXX
Agreed, the only way university adds up is to make porn and sell it while you are there.
Not to mention, you get into the workforce and you have large corporations doing everything they can to keep wages down. Free internships, H-1Bs, etc etc.
Because everyone who gets into a car knows what their chances are of surviving. And look at all the people not afraid to drive. I'm not sure how you could say self driving would cause less than 35k accidents, they haven't even tested them on ice yet.
Why do you think this situation is 'normally fatal'? Any $80K car is going to have air bags and a proper crumple zone to protect the driver. Heck, his foot may have slipped off the gas and slowed to a stop in the ditch.
In this case a car intended to require a driver HAD NO DRIVER for 7 minutes at highway speed. I think that is at least equally as dangerous.
Normally falling asleep at the wheel at highway speeds is fatal
I'm not convinced that is true at all, especially in an $80K vehicle.
Especially an $80K car.
If the car had realized that no one was responding and then executed a safe pull-over I would buy that autopilot could help *in this case*. However, this is too close to call. In a normal car, the driver may have been killed instantly or his foot may have left the gas pedal and slowed to a stop, or he may not have fallen asleep at all. In this case, a car kept driving for 7 minutes in which case a person could have been hit. The police had to intervene so they may have been injured as well. It's really just trading one crappy situation for another.
Considering the amount that humans drive every year, that's a drop in the bucket. Autonomous driving is nowhere close to being able to drive 3.22 trillion miles a year and only kill that many.
You are mandating that Tesla autopilot would kill less than 35k a year if there were 100 million of them all with drivers asleep?
I think you have that backwards. The problem isn't that businesses don't have a search engine to use. The problem is that being highly ranked on any search engine besides Google is not going to make you visible on the internet. This means, in effect, Google controls what people see on the internet. If you don't mind having one company control how other people see your business then fine, but I can understand why that could be considered undue control.
you mean:
127.0.0.1 slashdot.org
We are being told that these cars add up to safer driving overall. Given that they will be significantly less per capita than manual cars for many, many years to come, this means in fact they will need to be significantly better than humans to achieve this lofty goal. If I am to drink the kool-aid, at least explain to me how automated driving companies plan to make this happen, because if they aren't even away from "perfect weather planned routes" yet then they aren't doing very well.
Not really sure what the problem with it is. It does the same thing as the win 7 start menu but with a search field you can type into instantly.
I read the headline as $1.2 BILLION and I thought that was appropriate.
To me the UBI model is fairly straight forward and solves these problems. If you don't work you get UBI only and can buy basic things. If you do work you get UBI + a smaller salary and can afford luxuries. As withholding surplus resources from the needy, countries with government medical systems work out those kinds of issues all the time.
If I wanted to be a financial expert, I would have taken finance. As it turns out, I didn't want to be a financial expert so I took something else.
Er, don't talk like a failure to "delay gratification" is a weakness of character.
My wife has had cancer twice.. Don't talk like "delayed gratification" is a weakness of character. If you are responsible and working hard, you should be able to enjoy your current personal life to a certain extent. The illness has opened my eyes to living for the day and enjoying it.