That isn't really something current AI research is dealing with. That is more science fiction at this point. The type of problems and ethical concerns we have regarding current AI technologies is very different than the concerns which would come about when we have actually self aware artificial beings.
Agreed. I wouldn't have expected a definition of a complex concept like this coming out of Congress to be that accurate. I still don't expect any useful legislation to come from such as effort, but this initial bill is at least a good start.
We as a society do not have an obligation to protect stupid selfish people from themselves.
Doing so punishes smart people for the benefit of morons.
No, debt forgiveness for those who are overburdened with debt helps everyone, not just those who have their debt forgiven. The ability to take on debt for investment, whether it be capital investment for companies or an investment in education, is a significant boon to the economy. The only way this system works is if debt forgiveness exists, or else far less people would risk investments. We would go back to 10-20% of the population being college educated real quick if you couldn't easily get a loan for any degree, even liberal arts, and that would significantly harm everyone in the economy. Even those who are currently paying a small amount to cover for the mistakes of others.
Nice straw man, there. Please cite the words I used that resemble anything at all like that. Really, go ahead.
[My original post was] not-so-veiled comparison to every other situation where people deliberately, knowingly, foolishly take on a mountain of debt they can't afford. And then start looking to other people - via government compulsion through taxes taken mostly from a small percentage of the population - to pay for it.
All safety nets look to the small portion of people who benefit most from a well functioning society and economy to pay for it. Here you attack programs such as bankruptcy, and student debt forgiveness because bankruptcy rarely covers this, because ultimately those who do pay down their debts and pay higher taxes allow for these programs to exist. There are many other sentences I could quote where you argue that those who are successful should not be burdened with helping those who are not, which is what a safety net is.
You don't mention consumer protections directly, other than the fact your entire tirade was set off by comments from a consumer protections agency. If you have no beef with organizations that try to prevent situations where consumers and investors can be taken advantage of because of their irrational decisions then this was an odd place to vent your complaints.
their choices are going to cost them, and only them, what those choices cost.
There is your cognitive disconnect. Debt forgiveness for those who are overburdened with debt helps everyone, not just those who have their debt forgiven. Part of the cost of any debt, whether it be a car/house/college loan, is paying for those who will eventually default. Without this, less people would take the risk of taking out loans and the economy would suffer. In addition a graduate with too much debt often has a harder time applying the knowledge they gained when they have to worry more about how to pay off the debt. Students also would be less likely to study riskier subjects (which still have value to society) if the penalty for failing would be too severe.
Consumer protections to prevent too many students from taking on risky degrees is just as important as the debt forgiveness piece, but society overall suffers without either of them.
Your entire post just boils down to "we don't need consumer or investor protections because everyone should be expected to be experts in everything and that everyone who gets taken advantage of deserved it. Do you also blame rape victims for dressing to provocatively?
People make mistakes, and safety nets are there for a good reason. Risk taking is beneficial to our society, and risk taking would be discouraged if we didn't have various protections and safety nets to protect those who made bad bets. None of these protections wipe out all bad outcomes from making poor decisions, but they do prevent these bad decisions from having unnecessarily high consequences.
Take the French Lit degree holder in your example. Perhaps it was a bad decision, but what is the proper way for society to handle that? Certainly we do need some liberal arts majors, so we cannot get rid of the degree. Certainly we don't want only wealthy kids to get liberal arts degrees, so we cannot prevent loans for liberal arts degrees. So we choose to give safety nets for students who made poor career choices. None of those safety nets are going to give that individual the kind of career they would have if they had an engineering degree (for instance) but they do prevent the negative affects from destroying his life.
Attacking all consumer protections or safety nets on principle is simply an ignorant opinion to have, and it is sad that so many people have it. I guess it makes you feel better about yourself that you are so superior to regular people.
To those modding this down, you do know "ignorant" is not just some derogatory remark, right? It is used to describe someone who lacks understand, such as someone who thinks the investor protections are unnecessary because average people should just be smarter.
Seriously, if PEOPLE are taking out mortgages, I doubt it's many. Probably 1 or two. People are stupid, but surely not many are THAT stupid.
You are ignoring the most powerful motivator to make risky financial decisions there is: "So many people are making so much money and i'll be an idiot if I am the only one making nothing!"
Many people really will make a lot of money on this (many already have). Maybe Bitcoin goes up to $50k and today's investors will make serious money. But it is no different than doubling down on a good black jack hand. Eventually most people will probably lose big.
Next month, "Help me, other tax payers who aren't idiots! My mortgage is now bigger than the market value of my house. Make a law that makes the bank put my mortgage back the way it was! It's not fair!"
If the entire mortgage industry had spent the last year actively marketing new mortgages for the purpose of buying cryptocurrencies, and the government had been suggesting buying as many cryptocurrencies as you could afford was a fulfillment of the American dream, then your not so veiled comparison to the mortgage crisis would be more valid. As it stands your post is just ignorant.
But that was the case LONG before the wage stagnation started. Ever heard of the assembly line? Interstate highways? The telephone? Technological advances, if anything, have slowed during the stagnation period.
I never said those had no effect on productivity growth, just that an improved workforce was also a major driver. It is not a major driver today for the productivity improvements of middle and working class people. It is still a driver of productivity growth among highly skilled professions, which is why you see such growth in the upper middle class
I assume you're referring to the top 1%, as those have been the only folks seeing increased relative wages.
No, I am talking about the upper middle class. Definitions of this group vary, but the Urban Institute defines them as households between $100k-$350k of income for a family of three. In the past 35 years the upper middle class has grown from 12.9% of the population to 29.4%. Most people leaving the middle class are moving up to the upper middle class, not down to the working class. These are the workers who have the skills the modern economy needs, and they are the ones seeing the income growth.
The only thing that is certain is the middle class stagnation over the past 50 years is almost entirely caused by technological advances
I call bullshit on that. Productivity per worker has increased during that period. In prior times, that meant better pay for the workers, but not this time. Why not? Technological advances happened before that, also making workers more productive, but they saw better compensation.
In prior times, a significant portion of increased productivity came from improved workers. Namely a better education, and this included not only college but also improved high school completion rates. Workers themselves became more valuable, and therefore shared in the benefit of productivity increases.
In the past few decades the workforce is not becoming better at a similar rate. It's not really their fault, we simply already plucked the low hanging fruit last century. Going from a 3% to 25% college educated populace has a much greater effect than going from 25% to 35%. Today productivity advancements primarily come from capital expenditures such as robotics, software applications, or generally better machinery. It comes from investments in business process improvement, not from the workers being that much better at following those processes than 40 years ago. This is the primary reason why wages haven't gone up. Those with existing capital have more money to spend on capital investments, and therefore they are gaining the benefit of the resulting productivity increases. Increased health care costs are another reason, as total compensation has been rising but it is going towards insurance premiums not salary.
The upper middle class is seeing an explosion in wages because they have the skills which are better utilized in our modern economy. That is generally because technology becomes a force multiplier which multiplies the abilities of the most capable in our society more than everyone else. They are getting raises for the same reason machinists got raises in the 60's; they have the skills which today's economy needs the most.
First off, when you look back on hundreds of years of history it is easy to think 20 years passed by in a blink of an eye, but if you are living through times of massive change that can be an entire generation lost during times of progress. Even if more jobs are created than destroyed, if history repeats itself you will have tens of millions of people who will never catch up.
Second, humans have always found a way to stay useful in the economy regardless of technological advances so far. The same would have been said of horses in 1900. In the 1900's humans kept up with technology by going to college in record numbers. We went from under 5% being college educated to over 30%. But we are already hitting a limit of how educated the entire populace can get. College currently has a negative return on investment for a third of those with degrees. We are hitting a limit on how useful the median citizen can be in the modern economy.
It is possible that machine and human integration will provide to humans in this century what a college education provided last century. But that is far from certain. The only thing that is certain is the middle class stagnation over the past 50 years is almost entirely caused by technological advances and this type of change has a habit of following an exponential curve. Soon it will be 40 year old's who are as out of touch with new technology as 65 year old's are today.
People honest enough to admit their shortcomings, are probably quite able to tell where they can still be a good contribution. This late in the game, they must have ownership of their tasks, or they will hold everybody else up.
This. Identify the current workload within your IT department and any staffing deficiencies you have in completing that workload (skill gaps and/or not enough people with certain skills). Provide this information to these workers and work with them to develop a training plan. Maybe they just need a few books and a couple weeks of instructor led classes. Maybe they just need to work closely with other IT workers who have this knowledge for a while.
But please don't start training them on anything until you have a good idea what your company needs. Don't train them on AWS if you already have a resident expert who handles all those tickets. Don't train them on Mac driver updates if the OS handles them well enough there are only a few tickets per month. Find where you currently have trouble handling support tickets and train them on that.
So instead of saving money by getting rid of people, they ended up hiring more and making more money?
Yes, that is true, but it doesn't mean that overall hiring increased. It means customers prefer automated ordering and spent more of their money at Panera as opposed to competitors. Since Panera most likely required less workers than competitors who don't have automated ordering, overall employment likely dropped.
what about touching the bare skin on the back when you take a group selfie? or what about complimenting a coworker on their outfit? or what about walking around in your bathing suit at a company pool party?
Where are these stories of people being accused of sexual harassment by touching a coworkers bare shoulder during a group picture? Or occasionally complimenting an outfit? Or wearing a conservative bathing suit at a company pool party? I haven't heard of these. Perhaps there are cases of people caressing a coworker's bare skin during a photo, or routinely complementing the outfit choices of a coworker they have repeatedly asked out, or wearing a speedo to a pool party and rubbing up against people, but these are far different than what you mentioned.
It really isn't hard for most people who function around the opposite sex without being creepy. I'll admit there are some people who are just socially awkward, and they probably shouldn't try to read signals at work. But most of us know the difference between a touch and caressing. We know the difference between dancing at an after-hours party and grinding against someone. This really isn't rocket science.
The only thing changing is people are talking about the horrible things men have been doing to women since probably forever, although it is now more common in the workplace since more women are working. Just be respectful and you will be fine. You are probably more likely of being killed by a drunk driver than being accused of sexual harassment when not doing anything wrong.
Two huge ones I feel they missed are sticking with a single company without advancement for too long, and waiting for responsibility to be given to you.
While hopping between jobs every 10 months is a big red flag for most, staying at the same company in the same role for 10 years is even worse (IMHO). Every time I meet a developer who has been at the same company for a decade while staying at a mid-level developer position, I expect mediocrity. Only once have I been wrong. In your mid 20's to mid 30's you need to be moving up in responsibility rapidly, and most of the time a non-enterprise sized company cannot keep up with enough opportunities.
Also most coworkers I have had wait until being formally given responsibility instead of just taking it on themselves. Every time I have gotten a significant promotion my day to day responsibilities were largely unchanged. This was because I was already doing that role and the company was just making it official. I hear many coworkers complaining about how poorly their department is being run without ever finding ways they can improve it themselves without direction. If you have a boss that doesn't like this, get a new boss. But you cannot just wait for opportunities to present themselves; create opportunity.
The U-6 unemployment rate and the Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate: 25 to 54 take the factors you mention into account, without being skewed by retiring baby boomers. I even mentioned the U-6 unemployment rate in my post, so I'm not sure why you are responding with your anti-U3 rate rhetoric to my post.
You are correct that a 5.2% unemployment rate today is not as good as a 5.2% unemployment rate 20 years ago. But a 4.8% unemployment rate is, more or less.
they're talking especially about manufacturing jobs,
They are talking about manufacturing jobs because of political rhetoric, not because it shows any new trends. Manufacturing jobs grew by 126,000 per year from 2010-2016, but of course the White House only factors on 2016 where the was job loss in the sector. If you wanted a more liberal cherry picking of data you would look at 2014 where manufacturing jobs rose by over 200,000 (which is higher than 2017 end of year projections).
Put into context, manufacturing jobs dropped by about 600,000 per year from 2001-2010 until the previous administration turned that around. Perhaps if this White House was able to get manufacturing job growth back to the 600,000 per year we saw in the 60's (adjusted for population size) then that would be a paradigm shift as compared to the last decade. But 100,000-200,000 manufacturing job growth per year is simply the trend we have been seeing for the past 7 years.
But like jellomizer wrote in his response it is more important to look at what type of manufacturing jobs are being added. My assumption is it matches most other job growth, which is a very small amount of high paid professionals and a very large amount of below living wage low skilled jobs.
at that rate if we didn't have new people entering the workforce we'd be at full employment in just under 2.5 years
We are at full employment right now, which the Federal Reserve considers anything below 5.2% U-3 unemployment. We have been at full employment since the summer of 2015. Arguably the definition of full employment may need to change a bit considering the participation rate is lower today than at other times of "full employment" in recent history, but probably not by much.
For instance when we were at 5.2% U-3 in the 90's, U-6 was at about 7.2. When we hit 5.2% U-3 a couple years ago, U-6 was at about 7.6%. This could arguably mean that full employment should be considered closer to 4.8% today, which we reached in early 2016.
As for this month's job figures, remember new people are born and the population is rising. Around 125k jobs per month is what it takes to keep unemployment steady. This is clearly shown by the fact the total number of unemployed mostly kept steady this month (although with population growth a steady number of unemployed does mean the unemployment rate is dropping).
At the 2017 new job rate it would take closer to 12 years to see 100% employment (even if that was technically possible). The reality is we will see this slow growth of jobs for a little while longer until the next recession and then it will bounce back up.
Please have it learn how to play modern strategy games like Starcraft and Civilization so we can have computer players which don't suck without massive bonuses which change the dynamic of the game.
Cable companies have already made cord cutting not a very viable option for actually saving money. My cable bill is $120 (plus taxes and fees) which pays for Internet and a 220 channel lineup plus HBO. Internet alone is $80. Netflix is $14 and Hulu is $8, so even with just those two services I would be down to a grand total of $18 in savings each month by cutting the cord.
By 2030, cable television could just be included with your internet connection. The movie studios and sports leagues would just get paid from the Internet portion of your bill.
Yes, and I would hope most Americans would think laws such as the Sedition Act of 1918 would be considered appalling by modern standards as well. I hope no one mentions to Trump what the Sedition Act was because he would love it.
yeah, okay but the details are completely different and they matter a ton. when a 55 year old guy who specialized in programming Z80 chips for smart bombs is laid off his skill set is useless in today's market.
No, he is "useless" in today's market for maybe a month until he has picked up some new knowledge. I have been hired twice as a senior level developer in a language or platform I have never worked in, and it generally took a few weeks to get up to speed. It took closer to six months to a year to be what I consider a true senior resource in those technologies, but I was very useful to my computer in week 2.
The progress in AI is in re-defining it. We are no closer to strong AI than when we invented the term AI. We just have more classes of weak AI to claim victory over.
And yet since its inception the field of AI has heavily focused on weak AI with strong AI relegated mostly to television and films. It is detractors of AI research who are trying to redefine the term to mean creating a human level intelligence instead of simply algorithms which can produce human-like results.
While I agree it is nonsense for the wealthy to tell people they are only poor because they dare to have any indulgences in their life, $850 per year can be a significant amount of investment for most people. $850 per year put into an index fund over a 45 year career would likely turn into close to $150,000 in inflation adjusted dollars by retirement ($350k in today's dollars). That is nearly the median amount current retirees have saved for retirement (about $170k).
We have a product that embeds MapQuest. But MapQuest doesn't allow HTTPS so when the customer connects to our product using HTTPS the stupid fucking browser goes fucking nuts.
Slashdot Mirror
Forgot "systems that are self aware"
That isn't really something current AI research is dealing with. That is more science fiction at this point. The type of problems and ethical concerns we have regarding current AI technologies is very different than the concerns which would come about when we have actually self aware artificial beings.
Agreed. I wouldn't have expected a definition of a complex concept like this coming out of Congress to be that accurate. I still don't expect any useful legislation to come from such as effort, but this initial bill is at least a good start.
We as a society do not have an obligation to protect stupid selfish people from themselves.
Doing so punishes smart people for the benefit of morons.
No, debt forgiveness for those who are overburdened with debt helps everyone, not just those who have their debt forgiven. The ability to take on debt for investment, whether it be capital investment for companies or an investment in education, is a significant boon to the economy. The only way this system works is if debt forgiveness exists, or else far less people would risk investments. We would go back to 10-20% of the population being college educated real quick if you couldn't easily get a loan for any degree, even liberal arts, and that would significantly harm everyone in the economy. Even those who are currently paying a small amount to cover for the mistakes of others.
Attacking all consumer protections or safety nets
Nice straw man, there. Please cite the words I used that resemble anything at all like that. Really, go ahead.
[My original post was] not-so-veiled comparison to every other situation where people deliberately, knowingly, foolishly take on a mountain of debt they can't afford. And then start looking to other people - via government compulsion through taxes taken mostly from a small percentage of the population - to pay for it.
All safety nets look to the small portion of people who benefit most from a well functioning society and economy to pay for it. Here you attack programs such as bankruptcy, and student debt forgiveness because bankruptcy rarely covers this, because ultimately those who do pay down their debts and pay higher taxes allow for these programs to exist. There are many other sentences I could quote where you argue that those who are successful should not be burdened with helping those who are not, which is what a safety net is.
You don't mention consumer protections directly, other than the fact your entire tirade was set off by comments from a consumer protections agency. If you have no beef with organizations that try to prevent situations where consumers and investors can be taken advantage of because of their irrational decisions then this was an odd place to vent your complaints.
their choices are going to cost them, and only them, what those choices cost.
There is your cognitive disconnect. Debt forgiveness for those who are overburdened with debt helps everyone, not just those who have their debt forgiven. Part of the cost of any debt, whether it be a car/house/college loan, is paying for those who will eventually default. Without this, less people would take the risk of taking out loans and the economy would suffer. In addition a graduate with too much debt often has a harder time applying the knowledge they gained when they have to worry more about how to pay off the debt. Students also would be less likely to study riskier subjects (which still have value to society) if the penalty for failing would be too severe.
Consumer protections to prevent too many students from taking on risky degrees is just as important as the debt forgiveness piece, but society overall suffers without either of them.
Your entire post just boils down to "we don't need consumer or investor protections because everyone should be expected to be experts in everything and that everyone who gets taken advantage of deserved it. Do you also blame rape victims for dressing to provocatively?
People make mistakes, and safety nets are there for a good reason. Risk taking is beneficial to our society, and risk taking would be discouraged if we didn't have various protections and safety nets to protect those who made bad bets. None of these protections wipe out all bad outcomes from making poor decisions, but they do prevent these bad decisions from having unnecessarily high consequences.
Take the French Lit degree holder in your example. Perhaps it was a bad decision, but what is the proper way for society to handle that? Certainly we do need some liberal arts majors, so we cannot get rid of the degree. Certainly we don't want only wealthy kids to get liberal arts degrees, so we cannot prevent loans for liberal arts degrees. So we choose to give safety nets for students who made poor career choices. None of those safety nets are going to give that individual the kind of career they would have if they had an engineering degree (for instance) but they do prevent the negative affects from destroying his life.
Attacking all consumer protections or safety nets on principle is simply an ignorant opinion to have, and it is sad that so many people have it. I guess it makes you feel better about yourself that you are so superior to regular people.
To those modding this down, you do know "ignorant" is not just some derogatory remark, right? It is used to describe someone who lacks understand, such as someone who thinks the investor protections are unnecessary because average people should just be smarter.
Seriously, if PEOPLE are taking out mortgages, I doubt it's many. Probably 1 or two. People are stupid, but surely not many are THAT stupid.
You are ignoring the most powerful motivator to make risky financial decisions there is: "So many people are making so much money and i'll be an idiot if I am the only one making nothing!"
There are probably thousands if not tens of thousands of people who have already invested far more money than they can afford to lose on Bitcoin. The National Council on Problem Gambling estimates that 2 to 3 percent of adults in the United States (as many as 9 million people) have serious problems with gambling. Another 3 million meet the criteria for “pathological gambling” (also known as “compulsive gambling”). These are the types of people who would think Bitcoin is a good investment; the kind which can double their money overnight. "If I only invest $1000 instead of $10,000 I will lose $9000 when the price doubles, I need to invest more!"
Many people really will make a lot of money on this (many already have). Maybe Bitcoin goes up to $50k and today's investors will make serious money. But it is no different than doubling down on a good black jack hand. Eventually most people will probably lose big.
Next month, "Help me, other tax payers who aren't idiots! My mortgage is now bigger than the market value of my house. Make a law that makes the bank put my mortgage back the way it was! It's not fair!"
If the entire mortgage industry had spent the last year actively marketing new mortgages for the purpose of buying cryptocurrencies, and the government had been suggesting buying as many cryptocurrencies as you could afford was a fulfillment of the American dream, then your not so veiled comparison to the mortgage crisis would be more valid. As it stands your post is just ignorant.
But that was the case LONG before the wage stagnation started. Ever heard of the assembly line? Interstate highways? The telephone? Technological advances, if anything, have slowed during the stagnation period.
I never said those had no effect on productivity growth, just that an improved workforce was also a major driver. It is not a major driver today for the productivity improvements of middle and working class people. It is still a driver of productivity growth among highly skilled professions, which is why you see such growth in the upper middle class
I assume you're referring to the top 1%, as those have been the only folks seeing increased relative wages.
No, I am talking about the upper middle class. Definitions of this group vary, but the Urban Institute defines them as households between $100k-$350k of income for a family of three. In the past 35 years the upper middle class has grown from 12.9% of the population to 29.4%. Most people leaving the middle class are moving up to the upper middle class, not down to the working class. These are the workers who have the skills the modern economy needs, and they are the ones seeing the income growth.
The only thing that is certain is the middle class stagnation over the past 50 years is almost entirely caused by technological advances
I call bullshit on that. Productivity per worker has increased during that period. In prior times, that meant better pay for the workers, but not this time. Why not? Technological advances happened before that, also making workers more productive, but they saw better compensation.
In prior times, a significant portion of increased productivity came from improved workers. Namely a better education, and this included not only college but also improved high school completion rates. Workers themselves became more valuable, and therefore shared in the benefit of productivity increases.
In the past few decades the workforce is not becoming better at a similar rate. It's not really their fault, we simply already plucked the low hanging fruit last century. Going from a 3% to 25% college educated populace has a much greater effect than going from 25% to 35%. Today productivity advancements primarily come from capital expenditures such as robotics, software applications, or generally better machinery. It comes from investments in business process improvement, not from the workers being that much better at following those processes than 40 years ago. This is the primary reason why wages haven't gone up. Those with existing capital have more money to spend on capital investments, and therefore they are gaining the benefit of the resulting productivity increases. Increased health care costs are another reason, as total compensation has been rising but it is going towards insurance premiums not salary.
The upper middle class is seeing an explosion in wages because they have the skills which are better utilized in our modern economy. That is generally because technology becomes a force multiplier which multiplies the abilities of the most capable in our society more than everyone else. They are getting raises for the same reason machinists got raises in the 60's; they have the skills which today's economy needs the most.
And History isn't on your side of this debate.
History is absolutely on my side of this debate.
First off, when you look back on hundreds of years of history it is easy to think 20 years passed by in a blink of an eye, but if you are living through times of massive change that can be an entire generation lost during times of progress. Even if more jobs are created than destroyed, if history repeats itself you will have tens of millions of people who will never catch up.
Second, humans have always found a way to stay useful in the economy regardless of technological advances so far. The same would have been said of horses in 1900. In the 1900's humans kept up with technology by going to college in record numbers. We went from under 5% being college educated to over 30%. But we are already hitting a limit of how educated the entire populace can get. College currently has a negative return on investment for a third of those with degrees. We are hitting a limit on how useful the median citizen can be in the modern economy.
It is possible that machine and human integration will provide to humans in this century what a college education provided last century. But that is far from certain. The only thing that is certain is the middle class stagnation over the past 50 years is almost entirely caused by technological advances and this type of change has a habit of following an exponential curve. Soon it will be 40 year old's who are as out of touch with new technology as 65 year old's are today.
People honest enough to admit their shortcomings, are probably quite able to tell where they can still be a good contribution. This late in the game, they must have ownership of their tasks, or they will hold everybody else up.
This. Identify the current workload within your IT department and any staffing deficiencies you have in completing that workload (skill gaps and/or not enough people with certain skills). Provide this information to these workers and work with them to develop a training plan. Maybe they just need a few books and a couple weeks of instructor led classes. Maybe they just need to work closely with other IT workers who have this knowledge for a while.
But please don't start training them on anything until you have a good idea what your company needs. Don't train them on AWS if you already have a resident expert who handles all those tickets. Don't train them on Mac driver updates if the OS handles them well enough there are only a few tickets per month. Find where you currently have trouble handling support tickets and train them on that.
So instead of saving money by getting rid of people, they ended up hiring more and making more money?
Yes, that is true, but it doesn't mean that overall hiring increased. It means customers prefer automated ordering and spent more of their money at Panera as opposed to competitors. Since Panera most likely required less workers than competitors who don't have automated ordering, overall employment likely dropped.
what about touching the bare skin on the back when you take a group selfie? or what about complimenting a coworker on their outfit? or what about walking around in your bathing suit at a company pool party?
Where are these stories of people being accused of sexual harassment by touching a coworkers bare shoulder during a group picture? Or occasionally complimenting an outfit? Or wearing a conservative bathing suit at a company pool party? I haven't heard of these. Perhaps there are cases of people caressing a coworker's bare skin during a photo, or routinely complementing the outfit choices of a coworker they have repeatedly asked out, or wearing a speedo to a pool party and rubbing up against people, but these are far different than what you mentioned.
It really isn't hard for most people who function around the opposite sex without being creepy. I'll admit there are some people who are just socially awkward, and they probably shouldn't try to read signals at work. But most of us know the difference between a touch and caressing. We know the difference between dancing at an after-hours party and grinding against someone. This really isn't rocket science.
The only thing changing is people are talking about the horrible things men have been doing to women since probably forever, although it is now more common in the workplace since more women are working. Just be respectful and you will be fine. You are probably more likely of being killed by a drunk driver than being accused of sexual harassment when not doing anything wrong.
Two huge ones I feel they missed are sticking with a single company without advancement for too long, and waiting for responsibility to be given to you.
While hopping between jobs every 10 months is a big red flag for most, staying at the same company in the same role for 10 years is even worse (IMHO). Every time I meet a developer who has been at the same company for a decade while staying at a mid-level developer position, I expect mediocrity. Only once have I been wrong. In your mid 20's to mid 30's you need to be moving up in responsibility rapidly, and most of the time a non-enterprise sized company cannot keep up with enough opportunities.
Also most coworkers I have had wait until being formally given responsibility instead of just taking it on themselves. Every time I have gotten a significant promotion my day to day responsibilities were largely unchanged. This was because I was already doing that role and the company was just making it official. I hear many coworkers complaining about how poorly their department is being run without ever finding ways they can improve it themselves without direction. If you have a boss that doesn't like this, get a new boss. But you cannot just wait for opportunities to present themselves; create opportunity.
The U-6 unemployment rate and the Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate: 25 to 54 take the factors you mention into account, without being skewed by retiring baby boomers. I even mentioned the U-6 unemployment rate in my post, so I'm not sure why you are responding with your anti-U3 rate rhetoric to my post.
You are correct that a 5.2% unemployment rate today is not as good as a 5.2% unemployment rate 20 years ago. But a 4.8% unemployment rate is, more or less.
they're talking especially about manufacturing jobs,
They are talking about manufacturing jobs because of political rhetoric, not because it shows any new trends. Manufacturing jobs grew by 126,000 per year from 2010-2016, but of course the White House only factors on 2016 where the was job loss in the sector. If you wanted a more liberal cherry picking of data you would look at 2014 where manufacturing jobs rose by over 200,000 (which is higher than 2017 end of year projections).
Put into context, manufacturing jobs dropped by about 600,000 per year from 2001-2010 until the previous administration turned that around. Perhaps if this White House was able to get manufacturing job growth back to the 600,000 per year we saw in the 60's (adjusted for population size) then that would be a paradigm shift as compared to the last decade. But 100,000-200,000 manufacturing job growth per year is simply the trend we have been seeing for the past 7 years.
But like jellomizer wrote in his response it is more important to look at what type of manufacturing jobs are being added. My assumption is it matches most other job growth, which is a very small amount of high paid professionals and a very large amount of below living wage low skilled jobs.
at that rate if we didn't have new people entering the workforce we'd be at full employment in just under 2.5 years
We are at full employment right now, which the Federal Reserve considers anything below 5.2% U-3 unemployment. We have been at full employment since the summer of 2015. Arguably the definition of full employment may need to change a bit considering the participation rate is lower today than at other times of "full employment" in recent history, but probably not by much.
For instance when we were at 5.2% U-3 in the 90's, U-6 was at about 7.2. When we hit 5.2% U-3 a couple years ago, U-6 was at about 7.6%. This could arguably mean that full employment should be considered closer to 4.8% today, which we reached in early 2016.
As for this month's job figures, remember new people are born and the population is rising. Around 125k jobs per month is what it takes to keep unemployment steady. This is clearly shown by the fact the total number of unemployed mostly kept steady this month (although with population growth a steady number of unemployed does mean the unemployment rate is dropping).
At the 2017 new job rate it would take closer to 12 years to see 100% employment (even if that was technically possible). The reality is we will see this slow growth of jobs for a little while longer until the next recession and then it will bounce back up.
Please have it learn how to play modern strategy games like Starcraft and Civilization so we can have computer players which don't suck without massive bonuses which change the dynamic of the game.
Cable companies have already made cord cutting not a very viable option for actually saving money. My cable bill is $120 (plus taxes and fees) which pays for Internet and a 220 channel lineup plus HBO. Internet alone is $80. Netflix is $14 and Hulu is $8, so even with just those two services I would be down to a grand total of $18 in savings each month by cutting the cord.
By 2030, cable television could just be included with your internet connection. The movie studios and sports leagues would just get paid from the Internet portion of your bill.
I think Hitler had something like this, no?
So did Woodrow Wilson.
Yes, and I would hope most Americans would think laws such as the Sedition Act of 1918 would be considered appalling by modern standards as well. I hope no one mentions to Trump what the Sedition Act was because he would love it.
yeah, okay but the details are completely different and they matter a ton. when a 55 year old guy who specialized in programming Z80 chips for smart bombs is laid off his skill set is useless in today's market.
No, he is "useless" in today's market for maybe a month until he has picked up some new knowledge. I have been hired twice as a senior level developer in a language or platform I have never worked in, and it generally took a few weeks to get up to speed. It took closer to six months to a year to be what I consider a true senior resource in those technologies, but I was very useful to my computer in week 2.
The progress in AI is in re-defining it. We are no closer to strong AI than when we invented the term AI. We just have more classes of weak AI to claim victory over.
And yet since its inception the field of AI has heavily focused on weak AI with strong AI relegated mostly to television and films. It is detractors of AI research who are trying to redefine the term to mean creating a human level intelligence instead of simply algorithms which can produce human-like results.
While I agree it is nonsense for the wealthy to tell people they are only poor because they dare to have any indulgences in their life, $850 per year can be a significant amount of investment for most people. $850 per year put into an index fund over a 45 year career would likely turn into close to $150,000 in inflation adjusted dollars by retirement ($350k in today's dollars). That is nearly the median amount current retirees have saved for retirement (about $170k).
We have a product that embeds MapQuest. But MapQuest doesn't allow HTTPS so when the customer connects to our product using HTTPS the stupid fucking browser goes fucking nuts.
So like he said, you're part of the problem.