It's simple to find IT personnel if you set wages properly. The only ones having a hard time attracting talent are those with 1990's-level pay. That's what a booming economy is supposed to do.
That is a zero sum game, so even if everyone raised their salaries you wouldn't have enough workers. Or we would just start having shortages in other high skill industries if more students moved from pre-med to computer science.
A long term solution could certainly include significant increases in education funding, especially when targeting today's disadvantaged demographic groups, but that would take decades to bear fruit. Increased immigration is the only short term solution.
Trump has done more to protect your job from Indians than any president since Carter.
Trump has created an environment where you are less likely to have an Indian come to the US to take your job, but more likely to have the entire department move to India.
I have never met someone in charge of hiring (whose budget is not inflated by VC money) tell me it is easy to hire software engineers and other IT staff right now. We have been at "full employment" for quite some time, and likely well over 5 years in the IT industry. The US only has 5% of the world's population but controls around 20% of the world's economy, and we won't be able to maintain the benefits that strength gives us with only 5% of the world's best and brightest working in the US.
Except it won't be. They'll just arrest the person and "let the courts sort it out." Which never recognizes the damage that simply being arrested by itself can cause to someone.
And that practice will be something for the ACLU to combat. But always assuming the worst possible use of new techniques and technologies is not helpful.
I'm sure the final step would be for a real person to verify the matches to see if there's false positives. The AI in this case would likely be setup to tend to produce false positives rather than outright missing matches because not being able to find anything is worrysome compared to finding a few false positives. You would hope the cops arn't crazy enough to start arresting people based entirely on the matching system and at least look at the profiles to confirm.
This is exactly correct, and why these statements from the ACLU are ridiculous. Would they rather the police just be looking for any tall black guy with a sweatshirt in the area? This type of technology simply provides more information to the police, but it still takes actual policemen and prosecutors to decide who is a real suspect and who should be charged.
If you aren't playing games on your laptop, then perhaps you are using a development IDE or even Excel. There are far more applications than just games which can take advantage of an Intel HQ line processor or a decent video card. I would almost venture to say that anyone who can get away with an under-powered power saving CPU could probably do their work on a cheaper tablet.
I used to think only software developers and graphics designers needed powerful workstations. Then I saw the Excel spreadsheets many business professionals use day to day, and the list of people who its worth saving $500 on a weak laptop started to dwindle.
I was able to get my company to upgrade my team to Thinkpad P51 laptops and all the developers who previously requested desktops switched over to laptops. You can get near-desktop performance from a laptop, but it will weigh over 5 pounds. I'll never use anything weaker than an HQ mobile processor (or its equivelant) again.
The linked story is very light on details, but my first thought was also that it sounded like they were enforcing a minimum advertised price, which is common in the US at least. It is generally seen as a way to ensure online retailers don't undercut the pricing of brick and mortar stores.
It would be surprising that this behavior is consider anti-trust in the EU, but I wonder if their are specific details that makes these companies' actions illegal. Perhaps they cannot threaten the retailers, but instead would have had to simply pull their products from the shelves. Another story about these fines confirms there was no collusion between the companies so that isn't the issue either.
You're assuming they got 5 days of work done in 4 which I don't see written anywhere in the summary
Maybe try reading it again?
job and life satisfaction increased on all levels across the home and work front, with employees performing better in their jobs and enjoying them more than before the experiment.
Maybe try reading it again, and notice the article never backs up those claims. It gives plenty of details figures for stress and job satisfaction, but no figures for worker productivity. It may be an oversite, but considering the same author did give figures for a similar attempt by a Swedish company in an early article about the same topic (which were pretty negative) the only assumption I think is warranted is there are no figures to back up your assumptions.
The workers could have performed better in those 32 hours, but got less done than in 40 hours, and those summarized comments by the professor would still be accurate.
What makes me think that? Well, reading what TFA suggests...
I'm not sure I can say this without coming off as overly negative (this is the second time I tried writing this comment), but you really need to reconsider how you consume news. If you see an article which provides significant facts and figures, but then makes suggestions that their own figures don't even try to back up, that should be a HUGE red flag. You should never, under any circumstances, just take those suggestions at face value.
If you look at a past article about the same topic by the same author, she did provide figures about the significant cost increases caused by a 6-hour work day at a Swedish company. So I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that she isn't intentionally hiding facts, but she is guilty of putting in unsubstantiated comments in the absence of facts. By put in summarized comments by a professor which says the employees performed better at their jobs without using the same rigor as she does with other claims, many readers are likely to have too much confidence in those unsubstantiated claims. That may be an intentional attempt to make you feel those comments are just as valid as the ones she provides evidence to back up, or it could be an accident. But either way you shouldn't give any credence to those comments.
It's very hard to measure things like worker retention and recruiting from a two month trial. The novelty factor along would boost the number of applicants for jobs or on the off chance that a position might come up. Long term trials at a number of companies need to be done.
True enough, so in reality this trial was more like giving employees an extra 8 PTO days this year. Regardless of any news articles claiming success, true success will come from the company deciding to make this change permanent.
That didn't cross my mind when I read the article, but it is also odd it doesn't mention whether the company plans on continuing the practice. That is a big missed question for the interviewer, unless the answer didn't fit the narrative they were striving for that is.
What makes you think business owners are the only ones who benefit from companies being successful. In my opinion the USA has significant wealth inequality issues which need to be addressed, but we still need successful companies or else none of that matters.
No one would dispute that giving employees and extra 52 PTO days per year will make them happier and lower their stress. That is why those are not the important metrics, not because I don't find them to be important for the employees involved. What is important is understanding the relationship of that employee satisfaction to the actual bottom line. If companies can be convinced it is in their best interest, it could actually happen on a larger scale. That would be great.
Looks like they measured at least one of those three.
Not if they didn't provide any figures to back it up. If they didn't provide any figures at all I could consider it an oversight, but they did provide figures for employee satisfaction, stress levels, and a few others. What they missed is any actual figures measuring employer costs.
Another article about this company six months ago (by the same author) mentions a Swedish company that tried 6 hour work days and saw a 20% increase in costs. That is about what most people would expect from reducing their hours by 25%. A slight increase in productivity but a far greater loss in total output. There could certainly be differences in approach, corporate culture, or other factors that make Perpetual Guardian's approach more successful but nothing in this story except the vague and unsubstantiated remark you highlighted gives any insight into this.
It claims to have "employees performing better in their jobs and enjoying them more than before the experiment." That at least suggests a per-hour productivity increase.
It may suggest it, but it does absolutely nothing to back it up. The report lists many actual numbers to show increased job satisfaction and other similar metrics in order to back up their claims. They have left out any metrics which come close to measuring productivity or overall business costs.
I would also love to only work four 7-hour days, but my desire for that and my own opinions about its effectiveness do not provide tangible proof that companies can use to convince their investors.
Keep in mind that the workload, the expectations, the things that needed to get done, those did not change. This is a pretty major point since being overworked or not getting tasks completed is a major contributor to stress.
That could certainly be true, but nothing in the story suggests that. I made no comment about whether or not this company has been successful in implementing a 4-day work week. I only said the story doesn't give even the most basic information necessary to rate its success.
For all we know, they had to hire 20% more people to make up for lost productivity. For all we know, projects that would have taken 8 months are taking 10 months instead, and perhaps their management doesn't have good enough project metrics to notice. There is another article that mentions a similar Swedish company that enacted a 6 hour work day which concedes that while sick leave was reduced and job satisfaction increased, total costs to the company rose 20%.
I happen to think that people who are worked less are more productive, and that excessive overtime is not productive. However I personally doubt people can get as much done in 32 hours as they can in 40. I do think it is possible that improved retention and easier recruiting could make up for that gap though, so I am very interested to see these kinds of metrics from companies like this one. But this news story is nothing but a feel good piece; it does nothing to back up its claim that this practice has been a success. I hope this New Zealand company was more successful than the Swedish company I mentioned earlier but it will take a better news source to determine that. It looks like the company is open to giving their data to other companies who are curious about the 4-day work week.
America is a continent, not a country. You must mean USian.
America is well known as a shorthand for the Unites States of America. If you have a problem with well known shortened names, why did you use 'USian' instead of 'USAian'? US is an abbreviation for just United States, which is just as ambiguous as America if you are unwilling to accept common shorthand naming conventions. Plenty of countries are made up of a collection of states.
The term America nearly always means the USA, to the point where anyone not meaning the USA shouldn't be using that term. They would be more accurate by saying 'The Americas' if they meant the entire dual continents, or should be more specific by naming North America, South America, Latin America, or the specific countries they are referring to. But if someone says America, the mean the largest nation in the Americas: the USA. That is the accurate usage of the word in the English language.
If you disagree, do an informal survey by asking a dozen people to locate America on the map. I doubt you will find many people who point the entire Americas, and it's likely everyone who points to both continents as a whole are intentionally making some political point instead of trying to accurately answer your question (or perhaps just don't have English as their first language).
I hope this firm's 4-day work week is an unmitigated success, but this story misses the most important metrics for measuring the success: increased worker productivity, increased retention, various recruitment KPIs, etc. These are the metrics which can show that this plan will work for a larger number of companies. If the only thing that happens is happier employees, it is a failed experiment. Just give every employee a million dollars if you only care about happy employees. If you want to find a way to improve employee well-being while running a sustainable successful business, then you need to real metrics for success.
You may think it is a pipe dream, but autonomous driving obviously has extreme value when it finally works well enough.
In trucking about a quarter of the total operating costs are for labor. You would also see slight reductions in fuel and cab costs when no human is involved. About $200 billion goes towards truck drivers pay per year. Some of this labor would transform from truck driving to just truck loading/unloading (and some new software/robotic jobs), but there are still significant savings from going autonomous. That doesn't even account for less total trucks needed because all trucks would be hauling 24x7 (except when loading/unloading/deadheading). It's likely we would only need half as many total semi trucks to haul the same amount of goods once they all go autonomous. There is another around $150 billion of potential savings per year. Remember this is all just in the US.
Then there is personal transportation, and the potential for far less car ownership if there is a fleet of far cheaper autonomous taxis. It's harder to tell how much savings are there, but its likely very significant. Automotive manufacturers worldwide make over $1.5 trillion per year. There are hundreds of billions of dollars of savings there per year.
This all comes down to investor profit and consumer savings. That results in retirement accounts that keep going up, potentially thousands of dollars of savings yearly per household in reduced costs of goods and vehicle expenses, and likely increased wealth inequality if most of the financial gains go to investors (which they almost always do). Then again once you start seeing tens of millions of people out of work not because of recession but because of large scale industry displacement, this could be a catalyst for reversing course on decades of growing wealth inequality.
These violations seem easy to identify, so why has it taken this long for the EU to act? I cannot tell from the story how long Airbnb has operated in the EU but they do mention other EU legal battles in the past so I'm guessing it has been many years. It's not like Airbnb is a small company that could have flown below their radar.
Out of those three I would clearly sacrifice RAM. That is the easiest and cheapest part to go overboard on to ensure it is never a problem. Just get 32GB and this 10-13% extra usage is probably not an issue.
Clearly I would love all three, but my ideal second choice would be to sacrifice RAM for better CPU performance.
You've got the money part covered but notice the headline includes saving time. This is the real comedy; waiting around for a ride share is supposed to save time somehow?
The number of times I need a car with only a moment's notice is very low. Even when my child was screaming with an ear infection last weekend it still took 5-10 minutes to get everything ready and packed to get out the door. A few clicks on your phone is all it will take to hail an autonomous car.
It takes less than 5 minutes to hail an Uber in major cities now, and that will be go down with automated cars and wider adoption. People living in rural areas will likely continue to need at least one car per household for longer, but the need for 2 or more vehicles will go down dramatically.
So for just my commute I'd be looking at almost break-even: $8000 [for Uber] vs around $7500 [for car ownership]. BUT, I have kids. They need to be ferried to sports, before-school activities, certain friends' houses, etc. The kids blow the calculations out of the water. Kids are expensive. Then add in weekend travel and shopping/grocery trips and it isn't even close.
And then after you add in the cost savings for autonomous Uber vehicles compared to human operated Uber vehicles, it likely isn't close (but in the other direction). If you cut out the driver, your average Uber trip drops to $5-6 each way, making it closer to $4000 for Uber vs $7500 for car ownership. As for all of your kid activities, perhaps you will still need one car in your household but could likely get rid of your second (average cars per household is 2, and average for families with kids is > 2).
Actually I didn't lose. Trump is going to prison for the rest of his life and Republican faggot cowards like yourself will have to just deal with it ongoing forever, bitch. Don't cry snowflake, Donald doesn't care if you live or die lol. Moron.
Ha, even if you are right about Trump going to prison you still lose. They aren't going to remove his Supreme Court nominations, which is arguably the most important thing a president does (arguably by a very large margin). A Republican will still be in office even if Trump is sent to prison. A Republican will still be in office even if Pence is impeached along with Trump.
A significant amount of the damage cannot be undone. The effects of the 2016 election will be felt in the most impactful legal decisions in this country for at least 20 years, if not 30.
What's wrong with not being promoted -- just do your job well, take your pay and vacation time. Work to live, don't live to work. A snazzy job title isn't the pinnacle of human achievement.
While I agree with the sentiment that most people shouldn't feel pressured into living to work, the pinnacle of human achievement in any discipline is nearly always achieved through an insane devotion to the task. The people responsible for this level of excellence generally live to work.
There is nothing wrong with working to live, but there often is nothing wrong with living to work as long as it is a decision made freely.
Slashdot Mirror
It's simple to find IT personnel if you set wages properly. The only ones having a hard time attracting talent are those with 1990's-level pay. That's what a booming economy is supposed to do.
That is a zero sum game, so even if everyone raised their salaries you wouldn't have enough workers. Or we would just start having shortages in other high skill industries if more students moved from pre-med to computer science.
A long term solution could certainly include significant increases in education funding, especially when targeting today's disadvantaged demographic groups, but that would take decades to bear fruit. Increased immigration is the only short term solution.
Trump has done more to protect your job from Indians than any president since Carter.
Trump has created an environment where you are less likely to have an Indian come to the US to take your job, but more likely to have the entire department move to India.
I have never met someone in charge of hiring (whose budget is not inflated by VC money) tell me it is easy to hire software engineers and other IT staff right now. We have been at "full employment" for quite some time, and likely well over 5 years in the IT industry. The US only has 5% of the world's population but controls around 20% of the world's economy, and we won't be able to maintain the benefits that strength gives us with only 5% of the world's best and brightest working in the US.
Except it won't be. They'll just arrest the person and "let the courts sort it out." Which never recognizes the damage that simply being arrested by itself can cause to someone.
And that practice will be something for the ACLU to combat. But always assuming the worst possible use of new techniques and technologies is not helpful.
I'm sure the final step would be for a real person to verify the matches to see if there's false positives. The AI in this case would likely be setup to tend to produce false positives rather than outright missing matches because not being able to find anything is worrysome compared to finding a few false positives. You would hope the cops arn't crazy enough to start arresting people based entirely on the matching system and at least look at the profiles to confirm.
This is exactly correct, and why these statements from the ACLU are ridiculous. Would they rather the police just be looking for any tall black guy with a sweatshirt in the area? This type of technology simply provides more information to the police, but it still takes actual policemen and prosecutors to decide who is a real suspect and who should be charged.
You think patent law is something tech nerds in general aren't interested in? Are you new here?
If you aren't playing games on your laptop, then perhaps you are using a development IDE or even Excel. There are far more applications than just games which can take advantage of an Intel HQ line processor or a decent video card. I would almost venture to say that anyone who can get away with an under-powered power saving CPU could probably do their work on a cheaper tablet.
I used to think only software developers and graphics designers needed powerful workstations. Then I saw the Excel spreadsheets many business professionals use day to day, and the list of people who its worth saving $500 on a weak laptop started to dwindle.
Absolutely.
I was able to get my company to upgrade my team to Thinkpad P51 laptops and all the developers who previously requested desktops switched over to laptops. You can get near-desktop performance from a laptop, but it will weigh over 5 pounds. I'll never use anything weaker than an HQ mobile processor (or its equivelant) again.
The linked story is very light on details, but my first thought was also that it sounded like they were enforcing a minimum advertised price, which is common in the US at least. It is generally seen as a way to ensure online retailers don't undercut the pricing of brick and mortar stores.
It would be surprising that this behavior is consider anti-trust in the EU, but I wonder if their are specific details that makes these companies' actions illegal. Perhaps they cannot threaten the retailers, but instead would have had to simply pull their products from the shelves. Another story about these fines confirms there was no collusion between the companies so that isn't the issue either.
You're assuming they got 5 days of work done in 4 which I don't see written anywhere in the summary
Maybe try reading it again?
job and life satisfaction increased on all levels across the home and work front, with employees performing better in their jobs and enjoying them more than before the experiment.
Maybe try reading it again, and notice the article never backs up those claims. It gives plenty of details figures for stress and job satisfaction, but no figures for worker productivity. It may be an oversite, but considering the same author did give figures for a similar attempt by a Swedish company in an early article about the same topic (which were pretty negative) the only assumption I think is warranted is there are no figures to back up your assumptions.
The workers could have performed better in those 32 hours, but got less done than in 40 hours, and those summarized comments by the professor would still be accurate.
What makes me think that? Well, reading what TFA suggests...
I'm not sure I can say this without coming off as overly negative (this is the second time I tried writing this comment), but you really need to reconsider how you consume news. If you see an article which provides significant facts and figures, but then makes suggestions that their own figures don't even try to back up, that should be a HUGE red flag. You should never, under any circumstances, just take those suggestions at face value.
If you look at a past article about the same topic by the same author, she did provide figures about the significant cost increases caused by a 6-hour work day at a Swedish company. So I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that she isn't intentionally hiding facts, but she is guilty of putting in unsubstantiated comments in the absence of facts. By put in summarized comments by a professor which says the employees performed better at their jobs without using the same rigor as she does with other claims, many readers are likely to have too much confidence in those unsubstantiated claims. That may be an intentional attempt to make you feel those comments are just as valid as the ones she provides evidence to back up, or it could be an accident. But either way you shouldn't give any credence to those comments.
It's very hard to measure things like worker retention and recruiting from a two month trial. The novelty factor along would boost the number of applicants for jobs or on the off chance that a position might come up. Long term trials at a number of companies need to be done.
True enough, so in reality this trial was more like giving employees an extra 8 PTO days this year. Regardless of any news articles claiming success, true success will come from the company deciding to make this change permanent.
That didn't cross my mind when I read the article, but it is also odd it doesn't mention whether the company plans on continuing the practice. That is a big missed question for the interviewer, unless the answer didn't fit the narrative they were striving for that is.
What makes you think business owners are the only ones who benefit from companies being successful. In my opinion the USA has significant wealth inequality issues which need to be addressed, but we still need successful companies or else none of that matters.
No one would dispute that giving employees and extra 52 PTO days per year will make them happier and lower their stress. That is why those are not the important metrics, not because I don't find them to be important for the employees involved. What is important is understanding the relationship of that employee satisfaction to the actual bottom line. If companies can be convinced it is in their best interest, it could actually happen on a larger scale. That would be great.
But if someone says America, the mean the largest nation in the Americas: the USA.
You might want to check that out if you are talking about land area.
I wasn't. But yes Canada is larger by total land mass, even though nearly half the country is largely uninhabited.
Looks like they measured at least one of those three.
Not if they didn't provide any figures to back it up. If they didn't provide any figures at all I could consider it an oversight, but they did provide figures for employee satisfaction, stress levels, and a few others. What they missed is any actual figures measuring employer costs.
Another article about this company six months ago (by the same author) mentions a Swedish company that tried 6 hour work days and saw a 20% increase in costs. That is about what most people would expect from reducing their hours by 25%. A slight increase in productivity but a far greater loss in total output. There could certainly be differences in approach, corporate culture, or other factors that make Perpetual Guardian's approach more successful but nothing in this story except the vague and unsubstantiated remark you highlighted gives any insight into this.
It claims to have "employees performing better in their jobs and enjoying them more than before the experiment." That at least suggests a per-hour productivity increase.
It may suggest it, but it does absolutely nothing to back it up. The report lists many actual numbers to show increased job satisfaction and other similar metrics in order to back up their claims. They have left out any metrics which come close to measuring productivity or overall business costs.
I would also love to only work four 7-hour days, but my desire for that and my own opinions about its effectiveness do not provide tangible proof that companies can use to convince their investors.
Keep in mind that the workload, the expectations, the things that needed to get done, those did not change. This is a pretty major point since being overworked or not getting tasks completed is a major contributor to stress.
That could certainly be true, but nothing in the story suggests that. I made no comment about whether or not this company has been successful in implementing a 4-day work week. I only said the story doesn't give even the most basic information necessary to rate its success.
For all we know, they had to hire 20% more people to make up for lost productivity. For all we know, projects that would have taken 8 months are taking 10 months instead, and perhaps their management doesn't have good enough project metrics to notice. There is another article that mentions a similar Swedish company that enacted a 6 hour work day which concedes that while sick leave was reduced and job satisfaction increased, total costs to the company rose 20%.
I happen to think that people who are worked less are more productive, and that excessive overtime is not productive. However I personally doubt people can get as much done in 32 hours as they can in 40. I do think it is possible that improved retention and easier recruiting could make up for that gap though, so I am very interested to see these kinds of metrics from companies like this one. But this news story is nothing but a feel good piece; it does nothing to back up its claim that this practice has been a success. I hope this New Zealand company was more successful than the Swedish company I mentioned earlier but it will take a better news source to determine that. It looks like the company is open to giving their data to other companies who are curious about the 4-day work week.
America is a continent, not a country. You must mean USian.
America is well known as a shorthand for the Unites States of America. If you have a problem with well known shortened names, why did you use 'USian' instead of 'USAian'? US is an abbreviation for just United States, which is just as ambiguous as America if you are unwilling to accept common shorthand naming conventions. Plenty of countries are made up of a collection of states.
The term America nearly always means the USA, to the point where anyone not meaning the USA shouldn't be using that term. They would be more accurate by saying 'The Americas' if they meant the entire dual continents, or should be more specific by naming North America, South America, Latin America, or the specific countries they are referring to. But if someone says America, the mean the largest nation in the Americas: the USA. That is the accurate usage of the word in the English language.
If you disagree, do an informal survey by asking a dozen people to locate America on the map. I doubt you will find many people who point the entire Americas, and it's likely everyone who points to both continents as a whole are intentionally making some political point instead of trying to accurately answer your question (or perhaps just don't have English as their first language).
I hope this firm's 4-day work week is an unmitigated success, but this story misses the most important metrics for measuring the success: increased worker productivity, increased retention, various recruitment KPIs, etc. These are the metrics which can show that this plan will work for a larger number of companies. If the only thing that happens is happier employees, it is a failed experiment. Just give every employee a million dollars if you only care about happy employees. If you want to find a way to improve employee well-being while running a sustainable successful business, then you need to real metrics for success.
You may think it is a pipe dream, but autonomous driving obviously has extreme value when it finally works well enough.
In trucking about a quarter of the total operating costs are for labor. You would also see slight reductions in fuel and cab costs when no human is involved. About $200 billion goes towards truck drivers pay per year. Some of this labor would transform from truck driving to just truck loading/unloading (and some new software/robotic jobs), but there are still significant savings from going autonomous. That doesn't even account for less total trucks needed because all trucks would be hauling 24x7 (except when loading/unloading/deadheading). It's likely we would only need half as many total semi trucks to haul the same amount of goods once they all go autonomous. There is another around $150 billion of potential savings per year. Remember this is all just in the US.
Then there is personal transportation, and the potential for far less car ownership if there is a fleet of far cheaper autonomous taxis. It's harder to tell how much savings are there, but its likely very significant. Automotive manufacturers worldwide make over $1.5 trillion per year. There are hundreds of billions of dollars of savings there per year.
This all comes down to investor profit and consumer savings. That results in retirement accounts that keep going up, potentially thousands of dollars of savings yearly per household in reduced costs of goods and vehicle expenses, and likely increased wealth inequality if most of the financial gains go to investors (which they almost always do). Then again once you start seeing tens of millions of people out of work not because of recession but because of large scale industry displacement, this could be a catalyst for reversing course on decades of growing wealth inequality.
These violations seem easy to identify, so why has it taken this long for the EU to act? I cannot tell from the story how long Airbnb has operated in the EU but they do mention other EU legal battles in the past so I'm guessing it has been many years. It's not like Airbnb is a small company that could have flown below their radar.
Out of those three I would clearly sacrifice RAM. That is the easiest and cheapest part to go overboard on to ensure it is never a problem. Just get 32GB and this 10-13% extra usage is probably not an issue.
Clearly I would love all three, but my ideal second choice would be to sacrifice RAM for better CPU performance.
You've got the money part covered but notice the headline includes saving time. This is the real comedy; waiting around for a ride share is supposed to save time somehow?
The number of times I need a car with only a moment's notice is very low. Even when my child was screaming with an ear infection last weekend it still took 5-10 minutes to get everything ready and packed to get out the door. A few clicks on your phone is all it will take to hail an autonomous car.
It takes less than 5 minutes to hail an Uber in major cities now, and that will be go down with automated cars and wider adoption. People living in rural areas will likely continue to need at least one car per household for longer, but the need for 2 or more vehicles will go down dramatically.
So for just my commute I'd be looking at almost break-even: $8000 [for Uber] vs around $7500 [for car ownership]. BUT, I have kids. They need to be ferried to sports, before-school activities, certain friends' houses, etc. The kids blow the calculations out of the water. Kids are expensive. Then add in weekend travel and shopping/grocery trips and it isn't even close.
And then after you add in the cost savings for autonomous Uber vehicles compared to human operated Uber vehicles, it likely isn't close (but in the other direction). If you cut out the driver, your average Uber trip drops to $5-6 each way, making it closer to $4000 for Uber vs $7500 for car ownership. As for all of your kid activities, perhaps you will still need one car in your household but could likely get rid of your second (average cars per household is 2, and average for families with kids is > 2).
Actually I didn't lose. Trump is going to prison for the rest of his life and Republican faggot cowards like yourself will have to just deal with it ongoing forever, bitch. Don't cry snowflake, Donald doesn't care if you live or die lol. Moron.
Ha, even if you are right about Trump going to prison you still lose. They aren't going to remove his Supreme Court nominations, which is arguably the most important thing a president does (arguably by a very large margin). A Republican will still be in office even if Trump is sent to prison. A Republican will still be in office even if Pence is impeached along with Trump.
A significant amount of the damage cannot be undone. The effects of the 2016 election will be felt in the most impactful legal decisions in this country for at least 20 years, if not 30.
What's wrong with not being promoted -- just do your job well, take your pay and vacation time. Work to live, don't live to work. A snazzy job title isn't the pinnacle of human achievement.
While I agree with the sentiment that most people shouldn't feel pressured into living to work, the pinnacle of human achievement in any discipline is nearly always achieved through an insane devotion to the task. The people responsible for this level of excellence generally live to work.
There is nothing wrong with working to live, but there often is nothing wrong with living to work as long as it is a decision made freely.