Furthermore, when minimum wage first began under FDR, it was 25 cents an hour. Adjusted for inflation, that is $4.25 an hour today.
Well, that really depends on what things you factor in when adjusting for inflation. I would argue that the primary metric when setting minimum wage should be based on the cost of getting an education to allow someone to move beyond a minimum wage job.
Usually I try to be respectful of other people's opinions but no, I'm sorry it's not. I think it's very sympathetic to the plight of the lower classes but overall it's a terribly misguided idea to track inflation to education costs and only education costs. You can't pretend the rest of economy and society doesn't exist. Not everyone in poverty is capable/interested/planning on obtaining a post secondary education. So what happens if education costs go down and they can't afford other basic living expenses? Oh, they should all just go to college? Really? No, minimum wage should track the whole basket they use today for measuring the CPI because these are things people need to live everyday.
That first one is pretty important, because both that and the cost of education are solid indicators of whether someone can possibly make enough money to make a crucial leap in personal financial development—from minimum wage to better wage, from renting to home ownership. When low-end wages fail to keep up with inflation in those areas, even though the day-to-day survival items remain affordable, it means that the people at the bottom are more likely to be kept permanently at the bottom with no opportunity for advancement, effectively growing the divide between rich and poor and eroding the middle class. This, in turn, leads to much more serious societal problems.
The truth is, already education is free in the US. You don't have do anything to obtain except show up. I have to assume you're talking about post secondary education? If so, you're making it sound like all you have to do to get into the middle class is go to college. Sounds a lot like today's problem of kids obtaining college degrees and not being able to find gainful employment afterwards... Yes having a degree is a good indicator of your place in society. Yes, it'll raise your odds, statistically speaking. However there are still NO guarantees on this. The nuances are much more complex. Location, type of degree, you as a person, life skills, all of these details are important but more challenging to track and measure. As time goes on, society is beginning to realizing that post secondary education is neither an autopilot for success nor is it always even necessary to do well. Sure it's anecdotal, but just ask my plumber/electrician/landscaper/contractor. You don't need a college degree to be in the middle class. You just don't. The solution to "fix" society is not sending everyone to college. The really difficult question is how do you built up a society in such a way that everyone strives and works hard to obtain meaningful and gainful employment. It's a really, really hard problem to solve. Especially if you already have existing paths for people to do so, but they aren't doing it. Altering minimum wage is very easy and yet ineffective way of solving this problem. You can put more and more carrots in front of people to persuade them to go where you want them to go. But when do you stop adding carrots and instead figure out why they're not chasing the carrots?
Besides, post secondary education is way overpriced right now for all the wrong reasons compared to Harvard 1938. If you could break down the cost of your college bill, you'd be surprised how much of it is not even academic in nature. No way in hell we should be pegging something bloated like that as a measure for minimum wage.
Amen and amen. Though while ETFs have been exploding and mutual fund growth has been almost flat for the past decade, that industry is still far larger than ETF funds as a whole. Long ways to go. I do disagree though, or at least I'd say it with more nuance, that you need to use far more brains to be one of these guys than a McDonald's worker. I still wouldn't go as far as calling them "special" however. Most fast food workers would have the brains for it. They just happen to be working at a job that doesn't expect them to use much of it.
I'm still naive enough to think most people can be smart, just like most people can run marathons. They have their own requirements and investments but they're both achievable in one's lifetime. We do need to maintain a system that rewards achievers and punishes losers but there's a definite stickiness with those at those stuck at the bottom working hard and getting no where while people at the top collecting their pay check and doing nothing constructive. That part is really hard to remedy. You have to take Bob #1, no higher education, whose working 2 jobs to make ends meet and trying his best to put food on the table... and replace him with with Bob #2 working 3 cubes down from you, not doing his job, instead browsing slashdot all day. It's not easy!:)
In my fashionable neighborhood is a score of restaurants, a dozen nightclubs, 8 coffee shops, half dozen pizza & taco joints, and 1 (one) McDonalds. None of these places would survive without human servers. Not too many loner geeks or terrorists here, just fun loving people out for a good time. They're spending $30 and up for a meal, more for a night's drinking, and even at McDonalds they expect to see real humans behind the counter when they stop for their sobering up snack.
McDonalds is a small part of the scene here, but many McDs in the area have their own personalities. Near a local college, the McD is a bit cold and rushed; no time for pleasantries. My favorite suburban MdDs has for decades been warm and friendly and fast. I know the owner, the manager and most of the workers though they come and go with the tides. They are well paid, and it pays off in repeat customers. Others fall in between, just like other privately owned businesses.
YMMV at fast food: In n Out, Burger King, Wendys, etc. Some near home, some near work, some out on lonely highways where you need to stop and rest... But humans are always the best user interface. More so at real restaurants and night clubs.
You kinda surrendered your argument in your first 4 words. Not every neighborhood is going to be as nice as yours. You can try to make the argument of we should be creating this utopia instead of adding kiosks worldwide but you just increased the difficulty of the task 7.2 billion fold.
Well, now that machines do all the easy jobs, shouldn't the salary be $15/hr, since all the remaining low-wage jobs are probably harder?
Harder jobs likely do pay more but that's really not how it works though. It's more about supply & demand than anything. Easy to fill jobs will pay less than hard to fill jobs. What makes them "easy" or "hard" to fill is a long, long list of possibilities. Who can/wants a job that clean sewers? Few. Who can/wants a job where you stand around with minimal responsibilities? Many. Who can/wants a job programming in an x86 instruction set? Few. Who can/wants a job where you get to stock shelves in a store? Many. Who can/wants to live offshore away from family and operate an oil rig in the ocean? Few.
The can vs. want are vastly different things but they both unfortunately affect supply & demand the same way. That's how you can have sectors where jobs demanding low skill but nobody wants to do can pay well. While jobs demanding high skill but everyone wants to do pay poorly. Then factor in how many of those jobs are even out there.
Everyone else on Earth cheers as Wall Street replaced with algorithms capable of morality, compassion and empathy.
Morality, compassion and empathy not required - just algorithms that do the same thing they do...at least we'd eliminate all the smug suits feeling so superior and watch them live off the dole.
Oh this, this has been happening for past couple decades now. It will continue happening too. They're just as good at cannibalizing themselves for sake of efficiency as anyone else. Just because there's fewer of them won't make you start hating them any less though.
I remember taking a left brain / right brain test in high school and the teacher saying that the only people who scored equal on both sides tended to be either genius or mentally retarded. Whether it is autism, schizophrenia, creativity, or something else, if you want to "think outside the box" then being on the fringe is to your advantage. It doesn't surprise me that great thinkers were far outside the box. The trick is being far outside the box without being so far out that you're unstable. Many great thinkers, artists, etc.. were fairly unstable but still managed to hold it together well enough to give us some novel ideas.
On a somewhat related note, I have a personal theory that the spike in autism is being caused by smart people having children. If intelligence is "balancing on the brink of insanity", then two people on the brink who reproduce sometimes causes their offspring to be over the edge.
I'd even take it a step further. It's their obsessiveness about that one thing. There are many people in this world that are dedicated to their work. They work hard, work all nighters, get stressed, study, etc... but there are very, very, very few people in this world so obsessed with a *SINGLE* topic that almost literally consumes them, all day, every day, for years and years. To the point they're not just neglecting themselves, they often consider their bodies a physical nuisance. They also shun everything else that doesn't seem important, like spending social time with others, what other people think, eating, cleaning, other mundane tasks. If you could free your mind of those things and spend every waking second on a single topic, then it should be no surprise one would argue that you already have clinical issues. Most of us are not wired to do that, we'd probably psychologically break down instead of thriving like these guys.
If a repair shop doesn't know what liability insurance is, then he probably shouldn't be in the repair business anyway.
Liability claims always arise by accident but the insurer will most certainly nail you if you even make a slight habit of introducing liability claims. We haven't even mentioned yet the moral hazard of ignoring how he'd be sending innocent people off with cars not working properly. I'm sure you didn't mean to condone that but that's certainly what you made it look like. The guy is just trying to make a point that learning how to repair a Tesla vehicle is an investment he's not willing to make at this time. I'm sure he's not the only one. Really can't blame them, there aren't enough of them on the road to warrant it for a proper ROI for his business.
I agree the "more than half" is pretty ambiguous and leaves you craving for more information. As for 44 being a young adult, depends who you ask I guess lol. It was a direct quote though, pulled it from here: http://asirt.org/initiatives/i...
Tons of info out there on this stuff though, break it down by country, age, etc. United States does fair much better than most countries. But yeah, like you said, it still makes sense gets the point across. People often fail to remember just how dangerous cars really are. Everyone thinks they're a better than average driver. It'll never happen to me or a loved one, etc, etc, etc...
I question why that's necessary at all. Sure, the safety features and tech, I get that, but why are we all running things that beat car that were - in the 60's - the fastest racecars on Earth? So we can run the kids to school and then pop home for lunch? Why do road-legal cars even HAVE a speedometer that goes past 80, or an engine capable of doing so?
But manufacturers are still appealing to that metric above all others, even in huge diesel-guzzling SUV's that mums are buying to run the little darlings to their nativity play, to the point of breaking the law (in spirit, even if not the letter) to do so.
This guy is way too rational, he must be a robot, send him away! It never makes rational sense so not point in trying to see it rationally. Welcome to humanity. Where the only fact that matters is the fact that your stuff is better than the guy next to you! Don't even bother trolling these people either, they'll only look at you like you're the crazy one when you ask them if their corvette gets them to the grocery store faster lol. Those trend does have a habit of reversing itself whenever gasoline prices go up though.
I am also optimistic though that this trend may finally be put to an end with the introduction of autonomous cars that abide by speed limits regardless of engine size. Only to be replaced with something else though.
That is a very low bar. Tens of thousands of people are already killed each year by human driver error. An automated system would be easily safer.
Tens of thousands??? You're way off sir: "Nearly 1.3 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day. An additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled. More than half of all road traffic deaths occur among young adults ages 15-44." (asirt.org)
'Processing information' incorrectly or inadequately hundreds of times faster than a human being can is still incorrectly processed information. The difference here is that instead of just a few people getting injured or killed (in the case of a passenger vehicle), or some sheet metal getting crumpled, dozens or maybe hundreds of people could DIE when 18000 gallons of flammable liquid is spilled all over the place and ignited.
When it comes right down to it, this whole damned subject is supposed to be about safety of human beings, and it CANNOT be about anything else. I have said for as long as this whole 'self driving car' subject has been around, that if a 'self driving' vehicle of ANY KIND cannot be AT LEAST as flawless and safe as a human vehicle operator, then it has no business operating a vehicle at all. So far all I'm seeing is this entire technology being rushed to market as fast as they possibly can, and, apparently, to hell with who might get hurt in the process. Apparently, human lives are cheap, compared to the profit to be made from this.
I completely agree, and most people do too. Even the ones pushing this technology make that a primary theme in many of their pitches. It's a selling point. The problem today is quite the opposite though, humans really aren't that great at driving: "Nearly 1.3 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day. An additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled. More than half of all road traffic deaths occur among young adults ages 15-44." (asirt.org) AI technology for self driving cars is not quite there yet but it *WILL* happen. Goldman Sachs says it's still several decades away which seems like a fairly conservative estimate compared to those who think it's 5 years away.
Yes you are right with products like that (even though a real decent keyboard is still quite expensive).. But a bottle of coca cola (or a big mac) has only increased in price during the last 50 years, not decreased, and the productionline for creating those foodproducts have been bettered so it's cheaper for them to create the products..
I don't know, maybe inflation? Inflation is very destructive to the value of currency over long periods of time, like 50 years. Sure sounds like you're ignoring it in your calculus.
That capacity with the very heavy Tesla Model S will give you an approximate EPA range of 426km (265 miles). If your electricity cost was $0.15/kWh, that means the cost to charge your car fully from empty would be $0.15/kWh x 85kWh = $12.75. Since you would seldom fully empty your car battery fully, you would typically charge less than this, and it is likely the EPA range does not bring the battery to full empty. Even so, I will assume the price of driving the range of 426km would still be $12.75 (charged from the charger in your garage...fully charged when you get up).
Thanks for the arithmetic work but this may not work out as nicely everywhere. For me in Western New York in the US, it's $0.22/kWh for the electric supply. They then also charge a little more than double for "delivery" per kWh. It becomes about $0.47/kWh. They also add in a flat fee on each monthly bill but let's leave that out because I pay it regardless of the amount I use. Then, with my winter weather in this area, battery efficiency is cut in half which not only raises costs but also cuts my range in half as well. Also factor in the increased upfront cost of an EV vehicle and the fact that you lose some battery capacity each year. Last I checked it was estimated about 2% which also compounds each year. Don't get me wrong, I'll be first in line when the math works out in my favor but we're not there yet. I drive a hybrid today but I didn't buy one until the math worked into my favor. As for EV, have to wait for the numbers to improve in my favor. Like others have already said, if they get the cost of the a vehicle 20K $US that will also work wonders on vehicle demand. Would also be nice if they could fix the sharp drop in battery efficiency in below-freezing temperatures with better tech in the future.
Though in my neck of the woods, there are people driving around in huge 60K+ Pickups, and they certainly aren't making much more than the low 20K's per year. Dunno how they are doing it.
It's not just you. The number of people becoming "car poor" is certainly on the rise. Longer term loans with higher interest rates but lower monthly payments, it's a booming sector. The need for gap insurance is also increasing, that's where my company is making some money. As the saying goes, it can't go on forever.
As for the article itself I believe it. Only if you multiply their figure by a factor of 5, then yeah I'll accept that. As for the original 8 years estimate? That's a sensationalist marketing ploy to garner more attention to their study. Look how successful it is:).
It's still cheaper to hire 3 Indian devs than one American. Far fewer arguments too, they just do what they are told without argument, even if they are incompetent.
I think what you're saying is true most of the time but somehow some companies (like mine, who shall not be named) get roped into these contracts where they charge $100-150/hr who bill out projects that take 600 hours when they really should only take 10-20 hours. It's amazing in every sense of the word. I also have no doubt those poor Indians only get pennies while their parent "consulting company" pockets the lion's share.
Never met a young earther in my years of doing public science outreach but I've found tons of morons who think they understand science because they like the Jurassic Park movies.
You guys are worried about the wrong things.
Hahaha... I have to echo the same sentiment. The number of people I witness using their limited/misguided knowledge of science as a "weapon" to prove they're smarter than everyone else is a little distasteful. Really wish there was more *real* exposure to proper science instead of just Hollywood-type flashiness. It's worse than the almost-true "based on real events" movies that fictionalize history and just confuse people for the sake of money and entertainment. What can we do? Well, at least each of the last few Catholic popes have been becoming more vocal in their support of science so that's a step in the right direction. A very small step. I wish all the other less enlightened religious communities would follow their example. It's not hard.
It's almost as if people want a single answer to any problem instead of understanding the complexities of multiple answers in most situations. There are after all over 20 different types of hammers, they all do something better than the other. Not every hammer is ideally suited for every situation.
Interestingly for all the downsides the actual lifestyle doesn't exclude any of those.
- No land or yard of my own is a major benefit. The local park is kept meticulous by the council and is much bigger than the yard in my house in suburbia (currently rented out while I live in the city).
- Sharing walls with neighbours isn't an issue. The only sound that ever comes through is when someone needs to core drill the wall. I've heard that once in the past year. I had more problems in the suburb with noisy neighbours having backyard parties.
- I have friends over for a BBQ all the time. Actually when the sun is out the park is full of people cooking up huge feasts for their friends and families, and when it's cold miserable and raining, well the BBQ turns into an oven roast and they all still come over.
Hmm...so, is this park you have, like right across the street from you? How far do you have to haul everything over? What do you do for a grill, haul one of those over too? I have a nice Big Green Egg ceramic grill, and it really isn't terribly portable, but it IS fantastic, I can even cook low and slow on it, fill it with lump charcoal and some wood and it can cook 220F or so overnight. If you're wanting to BBQ and not just "grill"...where do you keep your smoker and firewood stack(s)? You leave that at the park, or do you haul all those over too? Gas grill?
How many friends do you have at your parties...?
And..if you do have it at the park, how far in advance do you have to make reservations? Do you have to pay for that? Can you decide on a whim you want to grill out, or this time of year where I live...have a crawfish boil, and have your spot in the park there for you by the afternoon on a morning you decide to have a wingding?
Sure it can be done, but doesn't sound convenient and you are likely dependent on what every cooking devices the city installs and maintains, and from the parks I"ve seen in my life, those aren't really choice utilities, not easy to get good, consistent results on...
Sharing walls. You must live in some very solid apartments. When I've lived in apts...the walls were usually thin enough to hear people sneeze loudly, much less act as any meaningful barrier to my stereo system. I paid good money for great sound and I don't want to waste it. My sub alone during movie nights shakes the ground....not good for wall attached neighbors.
But again, it is whatever suits you, but I fear your definition of "bbq", and parties differs greatly than mine and what most of my friends and neighbors are here where I live.
I won't even get into where you park your boat...?
;)
Oh leave it alone, arguing over this is like arguing over the best color in the world. The world is full of choices, everybody (hopefully) chooses the flavor they like.
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...
They are the reason why a 30k salary in the US can buy clothes and food. Cut down trade with cheap labor and many Americans become poor instantly.
Ahahaha! Oh, I loved your joke! Oh? You were being serious? Oh... oh my, so how do we get out of this mess? So our measured rate of inflation is also based on cheap products being sold to us from overseas too? Wait. Oh dear.
This is a direct result of the extreme overpaid status of the American tech workforce. The constant whining for President Trump to protect their jobs while market forces tear them down is solid proof that these jobs need to be adjusted well downward. Obviously the fact that companies are scrambling to send this work for others to do at a fraction of the US price should be the only clue you need that the market is unbalanced. At some point the quality of Indian engineers will improve to the point where even protectionist policies cannot save the jobs. Honestly, most people who have already had to deal with this in their business/line of work are sick of the whining. It's simply the way things are these days and a lot of it can be directly traced back to changes that were brought about by the tech industry. Good for the goose, good for the gander in my book.
You can certainly try to make that argument except as the article points out these folks might be well under qualified for these jobs. I'm certainly not vouching for protectionism at all. I'm simply saying speed and quality is sacrificed for the sake of cost. Depending on the industry that can matter a lot, or not at all. I'm "whining" because on one hand execs are buying into these sales pitches, doing everything they can to save money and then completely confounded why their efficiency, time to market, customer service, and innovation all suffer. You just can't have your cake and eat it too. Look at IBM, they've turned outsourcing into an art form and make it work (or at least so it appears, publicly). They are not however known for being cheap. I'd expect they're not scraping the bottom of the barrel for talent but who knows. The whole globalization and protectionism stuff you're bringing in here, while you might be oversimplifying things a tad, is a bit off topic.
Of course, after rereading the/. summary and title again, I can see how people might misinterpret the findings of this study, since the linked article is much more careful not to jump to grand conclusions, and explicitly mentions that they don't believe the psychedelic experience to necessarily be a "better" state of consciousness. But expecting anyone to actually RTFA instead of basing their opinions on the/. title is silly, I guess.
Try hard the researchers might, they can't stop news outlets and readers from hyping up their research. Words like "new higher state consciousness found" are just so gilded with gold and wonderfully misinterpreted. How could ANYONE resist?
Pretty sure my parent company still outsources to all of them. I hate making large broad statements, but I've never yet met one I was impressed by. Seems to whole business model for outsourcing revolves around everything being so cheap you can rebuild it 5x and still come out ahead on direct project costs. As for impacting the business with garbage software, that doesn't cost anything, right?
Maybe it's because I'm turning 50 this year, but I simply don't believe it.
At a certain point I suspect "fantastic claim" fatigue has to set in, where you've heard so many promising concepts but watched the huge majority founder on realities of cost, industrial scaling, or unforseen complications.
The fact that they say it might make it to the market in ten years means it's barely more than a tenuous idea right now, and frankly probably not even worth reporting on. The hyperbolic claims by the inventor make it even less credible, while the nonsensical reporting (implying that such devices would actually run only in light) is idiotic.
Came here to post exactly this, I don't even have anything to add. Well done!
What it could do is make creationism require even more mental contortions. It's hard to explain why a god who creates each species separately fully-developed would create microbes for Europa or Enceladus.
Creationism is a house of cards held together by masking tape. Even the last few Catholic popes have been getting more stern about denouncing it. Honestly, if they want to so BADLY believe the universe was created in 7 days they should just say it was created in 7 days but made to look as if it was much older to trick us. We've all been duped, you see! At least it would solve their mental contortions problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that really depends on what things you factor in when adjusting for inflation. I would argue that the primary metric when setting minimum wage should be based on the cost of getting an education to allow someone to move beyond a minimum wage job.
Usually I try to be respectful of other people's opinions but no, I'm sorry it's not. I think it's very sympathetic to the plight of the lower classes but overall it's a terribly misguided idea to track inflation to education costs and only education costs. You can't pretend the rest of economy and society doesn't exist. Not everyone in poverty is capable/interested/planning on obtaining a post secondary education. So what happens if education costs go down and they can't afford other basic living expenses? Oh, they should all just go to college? Really? No, minimum wage should track the whole basket they use today for measuring the CPI because these are things people need to live everyday.
The truth is, already education is free in the US. You don't have do anything to obtain except show up. I have to assume you're talking about post secondary education? If so, you're making it sound like all you have to do to get into the middle class is go to college. Sounds a lot like today's problem of kids obtaining college degrees and not being able to find gainful employment afterwards... Yes having a degree is a good indicator of your place in society. Yes, it'll raise your odds, statistically speaking. However there are still NO guarantees on this. The nuances are much more complex. Location, type of degree, you as a person, life skills, all of these details are important but more challenging to track and measure. As time goes on, society is beginning to realizing that post secondary education is neither an autopilot for success nor is it always even necessary to do well. Sure it's anecdotal, but just ask my plumber/electrician/landscaper/contractor. You don't need a college degree to be in the middle class. You just don't. The solution to "fix" society is not sending everyone to college. The really difficult question is how do you built up a society in such a way that everyone strives and works hard to obtain meaningful and gainful employment. It's a really, really hard problem to solve. Especially if you already have existing paths for people to do so, but they aren't doing it. Altering minimum wage is very easy and yet ineffective way of solving this problem. You can put more and more carrots in front of people to persuade them to go where you want them to go. But when do you stop adding carrots and instead figure out why they're not chasing the carrots?
Besides, post secondary education is way overpriced right now for all the wrong reasons compared to Harvard 1938. If you could break down the cost of your college bill, you'd be surprised how much of it is not even academic in nature. No way in hell we should be pegging something bloated like that as a measure for minimum wage.
I'm still naive enough to think most people can be smart, just like most people can run marathons. They have their own requirements and investments but they're both achievable in one's lifetime. We do need to maintain a system that rewards achievers and punishes losers but there's a definite stickiness with those at those stuck at the bottom working hard and getting no where while people at the top collecting their pay check and doing nothing constructive. That part is really hard to remedy. You have to take Bob #1, no higher education, whose working 2 jobs to make ends meet and trying his best to put food on the table... and replace him with with Bob #2 working 3 cubes down from you, not doing his job, instead browsing slashdot all day. It's not easy! :)
In my fashionable neighborhood is a score of restaurants, a dozen nightclubs, 8 coffee shops, half dozen pizza & taco joints, and 1 (one) McDonalds. None of these places would survive without human servers. Not too many loner geeks or terrorists here, just fun loving people out for a good time. They're spending $30 and up for a meal, more for a night's drinking, and even at McDonalds they expect to see real humans behind the counter when they stop for their sobering up snack.
McDonalds is a small part of the scene here, but many McDs in the area have their own personalities. Near a local college, the McD is a bit cold and rushed; no time for pleasantries. My favorite suburban MdDs has for decades been warm and friendly and fast. I know the owner, the manager and most of the workers though they come and go with the tides. They are well paid, and it pays off in repeat customers. Others fall in between, just like other privately owned businesses.
YMMV at fast food: In n Out, Burger King, Wendys, etc. Some near home, some near work, some out on lonely highways where you need to stop and rest... But humans are always the best user interface. More so at real restaurants and night clubs.
You kinda surrendered your argument in your first 4 words. Not every neighborhood is going to be as nice as yours. You can try to make the argument of we should be creating this utopia instead of adding kiosks worldwide but you just increased the difficulty of the task 7.2 billion fold.
Well, now that machines do all the easy jobs, shouldn't the salary be $15/hr, since all the remaining low-wage jobs are probably harder?
Harder jobs likely do pay more but that's really not how it works though. It's more about supply & demand than anything. Easy to fill jobs will pay less than hard to fill jobs. What makes them "easy" or "hard" to fill is a long, long list of possibilities. Who can/wants a job that clean sewers? Few. Who can/wants a job where you stand around with minimal responsibilities? Many. Who can/wants a job programming in an x86 instruction set? Few. Who can/wants a job where you get to stock shelves in a store? Many. Who can/wants to live offshore away from family and operate an oil rig in the ocean? Few.
The can vs. want are vastly different things but they both unfortunately affect supply & demand the same way. That's how you can have sectors where jobs demanding low skill but nobody wants to do can pay well. While jobs demanding high skill but everyone wants to do pay poorly. Then factor in how many of those jobs are even out there.
Everyone else on Earth cheers as Wall Street replaced with algorithms capable of morality, compassion and empathy.
Morality, compassion and empathy not required - just algorithms that do the same thing they do...at least we'd eliminate all the smug suits feeling so superior and watch them live off the dole.
Oh this, this has been happening for past couple decades now. It will continue happening too. They're just as good at cannibalizing themselves for sake of efficiency as anyone else. Just because there's fewer of them won't make you start hating them any less though.
I remember taking a left brain / right brain test in high school and the teacher saying that the only people who scored equal on both sides tended to be either genius or mentally retarded. Whether it is autism, schizophrenia, creativity, or something else, if you want to "think outside the box" then being on the fringe is to your advantage. It doesn't surprise me that great thinkers were far outside the box. The trick is being far outside the box without being so far out that you're unstable. Many great thinkers, artists, etc.. were fairly unstable but still managed to hold it together well enough to give us some novel ideas.
On a somewhat related note, I have a personal theory that the spike in autism is being caused by smart people having children. If intelligence is "balancing on the brink of insanity", then two people on the brink who reproduce sometimes causes their offspring to be over the edge.
I'd even take it a step further. It's their obsessiveness about that one thing. There are many people in this world that are dedicated to their work. They work hard, work all nighters, get stressed, study, etc... but there are very, very, very few people in this world so obsessed with a *SINGLE* topic that almost literally consumes them, all day, every day, for years and years. To the point they're not just neglecting themselves, they often consider their bodies a physical nuisance. They also shun everything else that doesn't seem important, like spending social time with others, what other people think, eating, cleaning, other mundane tasks. If you could free your mind of those things and spend every waking second on a single topic, then it should be no surprise one would argue that you already have clinical issues. Most of us are not wired to do that, we'd probably psychologically break down instead of thriving like these guys.
If a repair shop doesn't know what liability insurance is, then he probably shouldn't be in the repair business anyway.
Liability claims always arise by accident but the insurer will most certainly nail you if you even make a slight habit of introducing liability claims. We haven't even mentioned yet the moral hazard of ignoring how he'd be sending innocent people off with cars not working properly. I'm sure you didn't mean to condone that but that's certainly what you made it look like. The guy is just trying to make a point that learning how to repair a Tesla vehicle is an investment he's not willing to make at this time. I'm sure he's not the only one. Really can't blame them, there aren't enough of them on the road to warrant it for a proper ROI for his business.
Tons of info out there on this stuff though, break it down by country, age, etc. United States does fair much better than most countries. But yeah, like you said, it still makes sense gets the point across. People often fail to remember just how dangerous cars really are. Everyone thinks they're a better than average driver. It'll never happen to me or a loved one, etc, etc, etc...
I question why that's necessary at all. Sure, the safety features and tech, I get that, but why are we all running things that beat car that were - in the 60's - the fastest racecars on Earth? So we can run the kids to school and then pop home for lunch? Why do road-legal cars even HAVE a speedometer that goes past 80, or an engine capable of doing so?
But manufacturers are still appealing to that metric above all others, even in huge diesel-guzzling SUV's that mums are buying to run the little darlings to their nativity play, to the point of breaking the law (in spirit, even if not the letter) to do so.
This guy is way too rational, he must be a robot, send him away! It never makes rational sense so not point in trying to see it rationally. Welcome to humanity. Where the only fact that matters is the fact that your stuff is better than the guy next to you! Don't even bother trolling these people either, they'll only look at you like you're the crazy one when you ask them if their corvette gets them to the grocery store faster lol. Those trend does have a habit of reversing itself whenever gasoline prices go up though. I am also optimistic though that this trend may finally be put to an end with the introduction of autonomous cars that abide by speed limits regardless of engine size. Only to be replaced with something else though.
That is a very low bar. Tens of thousands of people are already killed each year by human driver error. An automated system would be easily safer.
Tens of thousands??? You're way off sir: "Nearly 1.3 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day. An additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled. More than half of all road traffic deaths occur among young adults ages 15-44." (asirt.org)
'Processing information' incorrectly or inadequately hundreds of times faster than a human being can is still incorrectly processed information. The difference here is that instead of just a few people getting injured or killed (in the case of a passenger vehicle), or some sheet metal getting crumpled, dozens or maybe hundreds of people could DIE when 18000 gallons of flammable liquid is spilled all over the place and ignited. When it comes right down to it, this whole damned subject is supposed to be about safety of human beings, and it CANNOT be about anything else. I have said for as long as this whole 'self driving car' subject has been around, that if a 'self driving' vehicle of ANY KIND cannot be AT LEAST as flawless and safe as a human vehicle operator, then it has no business operating a vehicle at all. So far all I'm seeing is this entire technology being rushed to market as fast as they possibly can, and, apparently, to hell with who might get hurt in the process. Apparently, human lives are cheap, compared to the profit to be made from this.
I completely agree, and most people do too. Even the ones pushing this technology make that a primary theme in many of their pitches. It's a selling point. The problem today is quite the opposite though, humans really aren't that great at driving: "Nearly 1.3 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day. An additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled. More than half of all road traffic deaths occur among young adults ages 15-44." (asirt.org) AI technology for self driving cars is not quite there yet but it *WILL* happen. Goldman Sachs says it's still several decades away which seems like a fairly conservative estimate compared to those who think it's 5 years away.
Yes you are right with products like that (even though a real decent keyboard is still quite expensive).. But a bottle of coca cola (or a big mac) has only increased in price during the last 50 years, not decreased, and the productionline for creating those foodproducts have been bettered so it's cheaper for them to create the products..
I don't know, maybe inflation? Inflation is very destructive to the value of currency over long periods of time, like 50 years. Sure sounds like you're ignoring it in your calculus.
That capacity with the very heavy Tesla Model S will give you an approximate EPA range of 426km (265 miles). If your electricity cost was $0.15/kWh, that means the cost to charge your car fully from empty would be $0.15/kWh x 85kWh = $12.75. Since you would seldom fully empty your car battery fully, you would typically charge less than this, and it is likely the EPA range does not bring the battery to full empty. Even so, I will assume the price of driving the range of 426km would still be $12.75 (charged from the charger in your garage...fully charged when you get up).
Thanks for the arithmetic work but this may not work out as nicely everywhere. For me in Western New York in the US, it's $0.22/kWh for the electric supply. They then also charge a little more than double for "delivery" per kWh. It becomes about $0.47/kWh. They also add in a flat fee on each monthly bill but let's leave that out because I pay it regardless of the amount I use. Then, with my winter weather in this area, battery efficiency is cut in half which not only raises costs but also cuts my range in half as well. Also factor in the increased upfront cost of an EV vehicle and the fact that you lose some battery capacity each year. Last I checked it was estimated about 2% which also compounds each year. Don't get me wrong, I'll be first in line when the math works out in my favor but we're not there yet. I drive a hybrid today but I didn't buy one until the math worked into my favor. As for EV, have to wait for the numbers to improve in my favor. Like others have already said, if they get the cost of the a vehicle 20K $US that will also work wonders on vehicle demand. Would also be nice if they could fix the sharp drop in battery efficiency in below-freezing temperatures with better tech in the future.
Though in my neck of the woods, there are people driving around in huge 60K+ Pickups, and they certainly aren't making much more than the low 20K's per year. Dunno how they are doing it.
It's not just you. The number of people becoming "car poor" is certainly on the rise. Longer term loans with higher interest rates but lower monthly payments, it's a booming sector. The need for gap insurance is also increasing, that's where my company is making some money. As the saying goes, it can't go on forever.
As for the article itself I believe it. Only if you multiply their figure by a factor of 5, then yeah I'll accept that. As for the original 8 years estimate? That's a sensationalist marketing ploy to garner more attention to their study. Look how successful it is :).
Your comment took way more time than I had available and I'm not sure I could have put it better even if I did. Upvote!
It's still cheaper to hire 3 Indian devs than one American. Far fewer arguments too, they just do what they are told without argument, even if they are incompetent.
I think what you're saying is true most of the time but somehow some companies (like mine, who shall not be named) get roped into these contracts where they charge $100-150/hr who bill out projects that take 600 hours when they really should only take 10-20 hours. It's amazing in every sense of the word. I also have no doubt those poor Indians only get pennies while their parent "consulting company" pockets the lion's share.
Never met a young earther in my years of doing public science outreach but I've found tons of morons who think they understand science because they like the Jurassic Park movies.
You guys are worried about the wrong things.
Hahaha... I have to echo the same sentiment. The number of people I witness using their limited/misguided knowledge of science as a "weapon" to prove they're smarter than everyone else is a little distasteful. Really wish there was more *real* exposure to proper science instead of just Hollywood-type flashiness. It's worse than the almost-true "based on real events" movies that fictionalize history and just confuse people for the sake of money and entertainment. What can we do? Well, at least each of the last few Catholic popes have been becoming more vocal in their support of science so that's a step in the right direction. A very small step. I wish all the other less enlightened religious communities would follow their example. It's not hard.
It's almost as if people want a single answer to any problem instead of understanding the complexities of multiple answers in most situations. There are after all over 20 different types of hammers, they all do something better than the other. Not every hammer is ideally suited for every situation.
Hmm...so, is this park you have, like right across the street from you? How far do you have to haul everything over? What do you do for a grill, haul one of those over too? I have a nice Big Green Egg ceramic grill, and it really isn't terribly portable, but it IS fantastic, I can even cook low and slow on it, fill it with lump charcoal and some wood and it can cook 220F or so overnight. If you're wanting to BBQ and not just "grill"...where do you keep your smoker and firewood stack(s)? You leave that at the park, or do you haul all those over too? Gas grill?
How many friends do you have at your parties...?
And..if you do have it at the park, how far in advance do you have to make reservations? Do you have to pay for that? Can you decide on a whim you want to grill out, or this time of year where I live...have a crawfish boil, and have your spot in the park there for you by the afternoon on a morning you decide to have a wingding?
Sure it can be done, but doesn't sound convenient and you are likely dependent on what every cooking devices the city installs and maintains, and from the parks I"ve seen in my life, those aren't really choice utilities, not easy to get good, consistent results on...
Sharing walls. You must live in some very solid apartments. When I've lived in apts...the walls were usually thin enough to hear people sneeze loudly, much less act as any meaningful barrier to my stereo system. I paid good money for great sound and I don't want to waste it. My sub alone during movie nights shakes the ground....not good for wall attached neighbors.
But again, it is whatever suits you, but I fear your definition of "bbq", and parties differs greatly than mine and what most of my friends and neighbors are here where I live.
I won't even get into where you park your boat...?
Oh leave it alone, arguing over this is like arguing over the best color in the world. The world is full of choices, everybody (hopefully) chooses the flavor they like. https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...
They are the reason why a 30k salary in the US can buy clothes and food. Cut down trade with cheap labor and many Americans become poor instantly.
Ahahaha! Oh, I loved your joke! Oh? You were being serious? Oh... oh my, so how do we get out of this mess? So our measured rate of inflation is also based on cheap products being sold to us from overseas too? Wait. Oh dear.
This is a direct result of the extreme overpaid status of the American tech workforce. The constant whining for President Trump to protect their jobs while market forces tear them down is solid proof that these jobs need to be adjusted well downward. Obviously the fact that companies are scrambling to send this work for others to do at a fraction of the US price should be the only clue you need that the market is unbalanced. At some point the quality of Indian engineers will improve to the point where even protectionist policies cannot save the jobs. Honestly, most people who have already had to deal with this in their business/line of work are sick of the whining. It's simply the way things are these days and a lot of it can be directly traced back to changes that were brought about by the tech industry. Good for the goose, good for the gander in my book.
You can certainly try to make that argument except as the article points out these folks might be well under qualified for these jobs. I'm certainly not vouching for protectionism at all. I'm simply saying speed and quality is sacrificed for the sake of cost. Depending on the industry that can matter a lot, or not at all. I'm "whining" because on one hand execs are buying into these sales pitches, doing everything they can to save money and then completely confounded why their efficiency, time to market, customer service, and innovation all suffer. You just can't have your cake and eat it too. Look at IBM, they've turned outsourcing into an art form and make it work (or at least so it appears, publicly). They are not however known for being cheap. I'd expect they're not scraping the bottom of the barrel for talent but who knows. The whole globalization and protectionism stuff you're bringing in here, while you might be oversimplifying things a tad, is a bit off topic.
Of course, after rereading the /. summary and title again, I can see how people might misinterpret the findings of this study, since the linked article is much more careful not to jump to grand conclusions, and explicitly mentions that they don't believe the psychedelic experience to necessarily be a "better" state of consciousness. But expecting anyone to actually RTFA instead of basing their opinions on the /. title is silly, I guess.
Try hard the researchers might, they can't stop news outlets and readers from hyping up their research. Words like "new higher state consciousness found" are just so gilded with gold and wonderfully misinterpreted. How could ANYONE resist?
Pretty sure my parent company still outsources to all of them. I hate making large broad statements, but I've never yet met one I was impressed by. Seems to whole business model for outsourcing revolves around everything being so cheap you can rebuild it 5x and still come out ahead on direct project costs. As for impacting the business with garbage software, that doesn't cost anything, right?
Maybe it's because I'm turning 50 this year, but I simply don't believe it.
At a certain point I suspect "fantastic claim" fatigue has to set in, where you've heard so many promising concepts but watched the huge majority founder on realities of cost, industrial scaling, or unforseen complications.
The fact that they say it might make it to the market in ten years means it's barely more than a tenuous idea right now, and frankly probably not even worth reporting on. The hyperbolic claims by the inventor make it even less credible, while the nonsensical reporting (implying that such devices would actually run only in light) is idiotic.
Came here to post exactly this, I don't even have anything to add. Well done!
What it could do is make creationism require even more mental contortions. It's hard to explain why a god who creates each species separately fully-developed would create microbes for Europa or Enceladus.
Creationism is a house of cards held together by masking tape. Even the last few Catholic popes have been getting more stern about denouncing it. Honestly, if they want to so BADLY believe the universe was created in 7 days they should just say it was created in 7 days but made to look as if it was much older to trick us. We've all been duped, you see! At least it would solve their mental contortions problem.