This statement triggered my BS detector.. "These jobs losses will be in concentrated in rural areas, particularly the swath of America between the coasts"
I don't know all of the factors leading up to GM's situation, but I do not think it's about factory workmanship. I think it's more about poor designs and cheap parts. In the last 18 years I've been driving Hondas putting on ~140K to 160 K miles before getting a different one. Almost no repairs. No wheel bearings, no alternators, no mufflers, no A/C pumps, no water pumps, no timing belts. None of that.
Friends driving GM Terrains are getting new wheel bearings at 40 K miles, new mufflers at 50 K. Dodge Caravans have the headlights turn off for no reason, not due to wiring, mind you, but due to bugs in SW. And its $50 bucks to upload the new bug fixed SW at the dealer. Grrrr..
A friend of mine told me she was happy with her Ford Taurus because She got 90K miles before she had to get a new wheel bearing and she was glad to use the extended warrant ( $1600!!!) she bought. WTF!
Personally I'm glad to not need repairs, and to not buy that warranty.
I've had to do only two non-normal maintenance repairs on Hondas in the last 18 years. I had paint flaking on a 1 year old car. Dealer repainted at no cost to me. I had brake lines rust out on a 15 year old Honda that had 150K miles. ( I live in snow country where they salt the roads. ) That's it.
I haven't been job hunting in recent years, but definitely have found employers to be very inconsiderate on this matter. I've never ghosted..
Also have been surprised to hear people with hourly retail or food service jobs walked out immediately after giving two weeks notice. Puts people in a bind who are depending on steady pay. I advise college age workers to pay attention to how their employer operates and act accordingly..
We live in fear of things being messed up due to media. But in reality, things are extremely secure for you. The media has convinced you that you need more more more, and things are bad if you can't get it. But in fact you -already- have more than any previous generation..
There are better social welfare programs than ever before. There' is less homelessness, less hunger, and people are living longer, which means better health. A big concern for people that live in poverty today is obesity. Too much food. Unemployment in America is low. It's very popular for all people, even young kids, to not only have a cell phone, but a smart phone. Did you know a smart phone cost per year?
I blame us Gen X'ers for coddling kids too much. I'm not sure why we think kids will want to stand on their own if they are given everything they need or want as dependents..
Seems to me that a growing economy building new jobs in different sectors has kept people going, but technology doesn't do that directly. Service industries are growing in the US.. What technology created those jobs??
I'm having trouble with this part: "This would make most of Earth uninhabitable to humans."
But I guess maybe most of Earth is uninhabitable by humans now? The oceans cover 71 percent of the Earth's surface, right? Are they saying that more than 50% of what is now habitable will be covered with water and will become uninhabitable? What about the currently uninhabitable parts that will become habitable?
I have found this to be very true outside of Open Source as well.
Some people thrive on pressure, deadlines, designing and building things that are hard to design and build, working in teams solving tough problems. Those people get bored when the SW project goes into maintenance mode. Others don't thrive with all that. They want to, or are at least willing to work at a different pace, with different kinds of challenges, reverse engineer other people's work, make bug fixes or incremental improvements under less stress and with less risk.
I guess for examples of natural selection I always think of the weaker, sicker, or less well adapted who are unable to survive as well, so they get removed from the gene pool before passing their genes on.
Saying tall men have more kids doesn't feel like natural selection. I think it would be more like socioeconomic selection. Tall men make more money and so can have more kids and they get better healthcare.
Do you suppose Harris Corp can sell Stingray to anyone who comes along with $200,000. Cops carry cell phones. I'd be surprised if organized crime doesn't already own a bunch of these...
I know for a fact that certain makes/models of aging tractors have very low or even non-existent aftermarket resale value because they are too hard/confusing to troubleshoot and ECUs/electronics/wiring parts are way too expensive. A clever mechanic/electronics person could make a lot of dough 'breaking the code' on these control systems, buying these tractors cheap, rebuilding the electronics and selling for 10's of thousands each.
I guess when the Justice department starts complaining about a 'zone of lawlessness, I start thinking... Hmm,, I bet they now have access to that email we all think is encrypted.. "It's _so_ encrypted. We just can't break into it. It's a safe zone for criminals. "
In our American two party system, the two parties are so close together in political stance that there is no real choice. And how will voting for a specific party cause the secret negotiations to end? Do we think either party is against this? So, I'm not sure what voting has to do with anything. It's more about how the system is broken.
Capitalism isn't a political system, it's an economic system, and it's not going to fail. It will always work because it's goal is for the people participating to make money, and they do.
Democracy is a political system. Ours democracy started off badly when the economic policies of Alexander Hamilton got the newly born nation into a bunch of stuff a gov't doesn't need to be involved in, The Federalist party, founded by Hamilton further promoted American treasury policy that helped capitalists make money. And our gov't has slowly slide further and further into the hands of capitalists. Don't get me wrong. I think capitalism is great and is perhaps the only economic system that can work. But it can be kept separate from gov't to a much larger extent than we now do.
Assuming you are American or from another developed country Free Trade probably isn't the goal. Free Trade will mostly benefit big corporations who will make more money by producing items in whatever country who's employees will work for the least. And those 3rd World Countries will benefit big time. Effectively wages and standard of living gets averaged out. Rich North Americans and Europeans get poorer as our jobs move out of our countries, and our money moves out of our economies.. Poor Africans and Asians get richer.
Don't know why you're ROTFLing. The people that are needed to work the restaurant with the automated systems will need to be a higher caliber of employee than the 10th graders you see learning how to press buttons on a PAR terminal now. And they'll get paid more because they won't get people good enough if they don't pay them a little more.
IMO automation like this is what will allow industries to pay a 'living wage", so increased the quality of life for some. Services industry will have less employees, but they will be doing the harder more demanding jobs, and they will be payed more. Quality of life will go up for those who keep their jobs at a higher pay rate, and down for those who were only marginally employable before, who now become absolutely unemployable due to their lack of skills, motivation, work-ethic, etc...
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want the service industry to pay their employees more, obviously, that industry is going to find a way to not hire the unskilled marginally employable people who aren't worth the living wage hourly rate.
Looks to me like this study was about how long bacteria live in noses of people. So they found people that would have a lot of bacteria in their noses, like farm workers, and looked for bacteria. BIG SURPRISE! They find some.
So I wonder how much MRSA and Multi-resistant other stuff they would find in noses of healthcare workers, or noses of teachers. Both groups that are exposed to a lot of mammals, in this case people, and thus flying bacteria, and thus all kinds of bacteria, including the nasty resistant stuff.. Compare those counts with farm works and then get back to me. Maybe we will have a reason to get wound up then...
Oh. Okay. I thought you were actually trying to say something.
'But calling people moronic for thinking that farmers never give cows spoiled feed and thinking that cows might still eat it is backwards.' I know farmers give cows spoiled feed. The usually won't eat what is bad for them, but sometimes they do, obviously. Meat Packers usually don't butcher sick cows, but sometimes they do. And meat is usually safe, but sometimes it's not.
My point. ( I was making a point, if it wasn't clear ) was that the chance of bad brewers grain causing a problem in the food supply, is pretty small. Like, it's never been a problem. No reason to think it would be. And Yes, If you are a person who thinks we should force brewers grain to be handled differently, be federal law, to prevent a problem that has never yet happened, I am calling you a moron. I'm not sure you think that though, so I'm probably not calling _you_ a moron.
So you think Farmers should want the Fed Gov't to make it illegal to buy ( or get for free ) brewers grain like they do now? So that the possibility of mycotoxin poison will be reduced? And so those farmers can trace the grain back to the brewer the farmer bought it from? Is that the problem you think the Fed Gov't should be solving for us here? Have you ever worked on a farm?
Someone thinks that we need to regulate brewers, so they won't ship bad feed to cows. Presumably a farmer wouldn't be able to tell the grain was bad, and would feed it to cows anyway. And then presumably the cows would eat the bad feed, making them sick, unhealthy, but not dead. The butchers would butchers these cows into tainted meat, and sell the meat. Then people would unknowingly eat the tainted meat and get sick. A bigger load of crap I've never seen or heard, Anybody that thinks this regulation is needed is a moron.
What makes you think a farmer would feed spoiled feed to cows. Why would a cow eat spoiled feed? How sick could a cow be and still be sold to slaughter? Who would slaughter _that_ sick cow? How would one sell the meat? If you think this is needed you shouldn't have a vote, because you are a moron.
If you have a concern over a situation like this, you should ask yourself how we can continue to import _ANY_ food from China.. Spend some time on _THAT_ problem, it's an actual problem.
If the brewer can not sell or give away the spent grains w/out incurring significant expense, they'll probably do something easier, like dump it in a land fill. _That_ will cost money. It's a drain on the economy any way you dice it, all to solve a problem that doesn't exist..
"The Malden Mills factory burned down on December 11, 1995. CEO Aaron Feuerstein decided to continue paying the salaries of all the now-unemployed workers while the factory was being rebuilt. By going against common CEO business practices, especially at a time when most companies were downsizing and moving overseas, he achieved recognition for doing the right thing"
This is slanted wrong. Public companies have share holders to answer to. They've sold their soul to the devil, AKA: Share holders who almost always buy shares to make money.
A private holder, a guy who is already rich, he can do what he wants. Maybe try to make money. Maybe try a long term growth strategy that won't make money for a few years. Maybe keep people on the payroll who should be layed off now, just so they will be ready to go to work in 6 months. I'd be way more critical of what public companies do to make money than I would be critical of private companies.
There are quite a few examples of privately held companies going the extra mile for their employees at the expense of short term profits.
Slashdot Mirror
This statement triggered my BS detector.. "These jobs losses will be in concentrated in rural areas, particularly the swath of America between the coasts"
Isn't -all- of America "between the coasts."
I don't know all of the factors leading up to GM's situation, but I do not think it's about factory workmanship. I think it's more about poor designs and cheap parts. In the last 18 years I've been driving Hondas putting on ~140K to 160 K miles before getting a different one. Almost no repairs. No wheel bearings, no alternators, no mufflers, no A/C pumps, no water pumps, no timing belts. None of that.
Friends driving GM Terrains are getting new wheel bearings at 40 K miles, new mufflers at 50 K. Dodge Caravans have the headlights turn off for no reason, not due to wiring, mind you, but due to bugs in SW. And its $50 bucks to upload the new bug fixed SW at the dealer. Grrrr..
A friend of mine told me she was happy with her Ford Taurus because She got 90K miles before she had to get a new wheel bearing and she was glad to use the extended warrant ( $1600!!!) she bought. WTF!
Personally I'm glad to not need repairs, and to not buy that warranty.
I've had to do only two non-normal maintenance repairs on Hondas in the last 18 years. I had paint flaking on a 1 year old car. Dealer repainted at no cost to me. I had brake lines rust out on a 15 year old Honda that had 150K miles. ( I live in snow country where they salt the roads. ) That's it.
I haven't been job hunting in recent years, but definitely have found employers to be very inconsiderate on this matter. I've never ghosted..
Also have been surprised to hear people with hourly retail or food service jobs walked out immediately after giving two weeks notice. Puts people in a bind who are depending on steady pay. I advise college age workers to pay attention to how their employer operates and act accordingly..
We live in fear of things being messed up due to media. But in reality, things are extremely secure for you. The media has convinced you that you need more more more, and things are bad if you can't get it. But in fact you -already- have more than any previous generation..
There are better social welfare programs than ever before. There' is less homelessness, less hunger, and people are living longer, which means better health. A big concern for people that live in poverty today is obesity. Too much food. Unemployment in America is low. It's very popular for all people, even young kids, to not only have a cell phone, but a smart phone. Did you know a smart phone cost per year?
I blame us Gen X'ers for coddling kids too much. I'm not sure why we think kids will want to stand on their own if they are given everything they need or want as dependents..
Seems to me that a growing economy building new jobs in different sectors has kept people going, but technology doesn't do that directly. Service industries are growing in the US.. What technology created those jobs??
I'm having trouble with this part: "This would make most of Earth uninhabitable to humans."
But I guess maybe most of Earth is uninhabitable by humans now? The oceans cover 71 percent of the Earth's surface, right? Are they saying that more than 50% of what is now habitable will be covered with water and will become uninhabitable? What about the currently uninhabitable parts that will become habitable?
I have found this to be very true outside of Open Source as well.
Some people thrive on pressure, deadlines, designing and building things that are hard to design and build, working in teams solving tough problems. Those people get bored when the SW project goes into maintenance mode. Others don't thrive with all that. They want to, or are at least willing to work at a different pace, with different kinds of challenges, reverse engineer other people's work, make bug fixes or incremental improvements under less stress and with less risk.
Kevin
I guess for examples of natural selection I always think of the weaker, sicker, or less well adapted who are unable to survive as well, so they get removed from the gene pool before passing their genes on.
Saying tall men have more kids doesn't feel like natural selection. I think it would be more like socioeconomic selection. Tall men make more money and so can have more kids and they get better healthcare.
Do you suppose Harris Corp can sell Stingray to anyone who comes along with $200,000. Cops carry cell phones. I'd be surprised if organized crime doesn't already own a bunch of these...
I know for a fact that certain makes/models of aging tractors have very low or even non-existent aftermarket resale value because they are too hard/confusing to troubleshoot and ECUs/electronics/wiring parts are way too expensive. A clever mechanic/electronics person could make a lot of dough 'breaking the code' on these control systems, buying these tractors cheap, rebuilding the electronics and selling for 10's of thousands each.
I guess when the Justice department starts complaining about a 'zone of lawlessness, I start thinking... Hmm,, I bet they now have access to that email we all think is encrypted.. "It's _so_ encrypted. We just can't break into it. It's a safe zone for criminals. "
umm.. ookkaaaaaayyyyy....
In our American two party system, the two parties are so close together in political stance that there is no real choice. And how will voting for a specific party cause the secret negotiations to end? Do we think either party is against this? So, I'm not sure what voting has to do with anything. It's more about how the system is broken.
Capitalism isn't a political system, it's an economic system, and it's not going to fail. It will always work because it's goal is for the people participating to make money, and they do.
Democracy is a political system. Ours democracy started off badly when the economic policies of Alexander Hamilton got the newly born nation into a bunch of stuff a gov't doesn't need to be involved in, The Federalist party, founded by Hamilton further promoted American treasury policy that helped capitalists make money. And our gov't has slowly slide further and further into the hands of capitalists. Don't get me wrong. I think capitalism is great and is perhaps the only economic system that can work. But it can be kept separate from gov't to a much larger extent than we now do.
-Kevin
Assuming you are American or from another developed country Free Trade probably isn't the goal. Free Trade will mostly benefit big corporations who will make more money by producing items in whatever country who's employees will work for the least. And those 3rd World Countries will benefit big time. Effectively wages and standard of living gets averaged out. Rich North Americans and Europeans get poorer as our jobs move out of our countries, and our money moves out of our economies.. Poor Africans and Asians get richer.
-Kevin
The TPP isn't for American Citizens. It's for companies that are buying american politicians. That's why. It's very obvious..
- Kevin.
Don't know why you're ROTFLing. The people that are needed to work the restaurant with the automated systems will need to be a higher caliber of employee than the 10th graders you see learning how to press buttons on a PAR terminal now. And they'll get paid more because they won't get people good enough if they don't pay them a little more.
IMO automation like this is what will allow industries to pay a 'living wage", so increased the quality of life for some. Services industry will have less employees, but they will be doing the harder more demanding jobs, and they will be payed more. Quality of life will go up for those who keep their jobs at a higher pay rate, and down for those who were only marginally employable before, who now become absolutely unemployable due to their lack of skills, motivation, work-ethic, etc...
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want the service industry to pay their employees more, obviously, that industry is going to find a way to not hire the unskilled marginally employable people who aren't worth the living wage hourly rate.
Looks to me like this study was about how long bacteria live in noses of people. So they found people that would have a lot of bacteria in their noses, like farm workers, and looked for bacteria. BIG SURPRISE! They find some.
So I wonder how much MRSA and Multi-resistant other stuff they would find in noses of healthcare workers, or noses of teachers. Both groups that are exposed to a lot of mammals, in this case people, and thus flying bacteria, and thus all kinds of bacteria, including the nasty resistant stuff.. Compare those counts with farm works and then get back to me. Maybe we will have a reason to get wound up then...
Oh. Okay. I thought you were actually trying to say something.
'But calling people moronic for thinking that farmers never give cows spoiled feed and thinking that cows might still eat it is backwards.' I know farmers give cows spoiled feed. The usually won't eat what is bad for them, but sometimes they do, obviously. Meat Packers usually don't butcher sick cows, but sometimes they do. And meat is usually safe, but sometimes it's not.
My point. ( I was making a point, if it wasn't clear ) was that the chance of bad brewers grain causing a problem in the food supply, is pretty small. Like, it's never been a problem. No reason to think it would be. And Yes, If you are a person who thinks we should force brewers grain to be handled differently, be federal law, to prevent a problem that has never yet happened, I am calling you a moron. I'm not sure you think that though, so I'm probably not calling _you_ a moron.
So you think Farmers should want the Fed Gov't to make it illegal to buy ( or get for free ) brewers grain like they do now? So that the possibility of mycotoxin poison will be reduced? And so those farmers can trace the grain back to the brewer the farmer bought it from? Is that the problem you think the Fed Gov't should be solving for us here? Have you ever worked on a farm?
Someone thinks that we need to regulate brewers, so they won't ship bad feed to cows. Presumably a farmer wouldn't be able to tell the grain was bad, and would feed it to cows anyway. And then presumably the cows would eat the bad feed, making them sick, unhealthy, but not dead. The butchers would butchers these cows into tainted meat, and sell the meat. Then people would unknowingly eat the tainted meat and get sick. A bigger load of crap I've never seen or heard, Anybody that thinks this regulation is needed is a moron.
What makes you think a farmer would feed spoiled feed to cows. Why would a cow eat spoiled feed? How sick could a cow be and still be sold to slaughter? Who would slaughter _that_ sick cow? How would one sell the meat? If you think this is needed you shouldn't have a vote, because you are a moron.
If you have a concern over a situation like this, you should ask yourself how we can continue to import _ANY_ food from China.. Spend some time on _THAT_ problem, it's an actual problem.
If the brewer can not sell or give away the spent grains w/out incurring significant expense, they'll probably do something easier, like dump it in a land fill. _That_ will cost money. It's a drain on the economy any way you dice it, all to solve a problem that doesn't exist..
Are you looking out for creditors? Or Employess?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malden_Mills
"The Malden Mills factory burned down on December 11, 1995. CEO Aaron Feuerstein decided to continue paying the salaries of all the now-unemployed workers while the factory was being rebuilt. By going against common CEO business practices, especially at a time when most companies were downsizing and moving overseas, he achieved recognition for doing the right thing"
This is slanted wrong. Public companies have share holders to answer to. They've sold their soul to the devil, AKA: Share holders who almost always buy shares to make money.
A private holder, a guy who is already rich, he can do what he wants. Maybe try to make money. Maybe try a long term growth strategy that won't make money for a few years. Maybe keep people on the payroll who should be layed off now, just so they will be ready to go to work in 6 months. I'd be way more critical of what public companies do to make money than I would be critical of private companies.
There are quite a few examples of privately held companies going the extra mile for their employees at the expense of short term profits.