So? Times change. Why shouldn't we re-examine old laws in the face of a new problem? Maybe unemployment is a bigger concern than some protection enacted to help, for example, 1930s coal miners?
We should re-examine (not necessarily "cut") parts of these: - The Davis Bacon Act - The Lacey Act - The National Labor Relations Act - The Americans With Disabilities Act - The Controlled Substances Act - The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - The Family and Medical Leave Act - The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII - The Employment Non-Discrimination Act
That's just a starting list. There are numerous state and local laws that make employing people more expensive and risky.
Robots are not covered by any of these acts. Companies choosing robots over people are not burdened by the cost of complying with these acts. You can't argue that a minority person won't be able to get a job because of discrimination when you're also arguing they won't be able to get a job because robots took away all the jobs.
It's interesting that you're worried about worker protections based on problems from the past, often things from 50 or 75 years ago. Meanwhile, the topic is about some distant future where no one can get a job due to automation. Why can't we re-examine laws when circumstances change?
As automation lowers the cost of producing goods toward zero, a smaller wage should buy more goods and living standards can improve even as wages go down.
(Of course, this whole discussion is silly because automation is as limited as anything else. But if you believe in automation replacing almost everyone, then you have to also accept that it will drastically cut the costs of goods.)
I'm not sure how that is an argument for artificially keeping people unemployed between now and whatever distant future you imagine. Wages could be higher if non-wage costs associated with employing someone or doing business were lower -- of course this depends on the supply of people to do the job.
Is there really an argument against considering changes to laws to help employers employ people?
Maybe we should re-examine every law, regulation, and employer mandate that makes it more expensive or more risky to hire people or conduct business that would employ people?
You probably shouldn't want to influence the world. People who would say they "want to influence the world" generally lack the humility needed to avoid accidentally or recklessly making things worse for the world as a result of their influence.
They already forcibly herd all the kids together in the government schools to infect each other with diseases and bring them home to infect the adult population. If you want to keep the government out of your body, then you need to get it out of your family, away from your children, and out of your business.
In the US, the employer would be sued because defending against lawsuits is expensive. So you sue anyone with money. Then you make a deal to drop the lawsuit in exchange for some money -- more than the $0 you deserve, but less than it costs the employer to have his lawyers fight you in court.
You don't need to have a winning case.
In the US, the employer probably has liability insurance that will pay most of the money. I would guess the liability insurance company probably requires the employer not to hire felons -- or charges a much higher premium to employers who hire felons.
What if they find out anyway? If someone hires a thief to work with children and then the thief steals from the child's family, can the employer be sued? Is the government declaration a shield against liability?
We could make it harder to sue or less profitable to sue if you lose. But that would mean some companies could escape liability even though they knew they were hiring felons. What does the anti-corporate crowd on Slashdot suggest for this?
One possible answer is a government funded liability pool. Governments could insure against these lawsuits as a way to help felons keep out of trouble in the future. Of course, this would (correctly) be called a taxpayer giveaway to companies and ex-cons.
It seems like the only solution is for the culture to be less punitive. Against felons and companies and everyone else. Look for that to happen when US politics stops being primarily about "us vs. them". Not soon.
Did you use due process? What standard of evidence? What's "cause"? Is there a law that has charter revocation as a punishment for violating it, or are you just making up ways you'd like to hurt people? Are you justly compensating the innocent people when you take their property -- their ownership in the corporation?
Centralizing police around other police seems counterproductive and inefficient. If police are going to protect and serve citizens, they should be distributed near the citizens. If they're going to catch criminals or patrol to deter criminals, they should be distributed near the crime areas.
I would guess there's relatively little crime within a block of the police station. Police should create a mobile platform and move the police stations to where the crime happens every few weeks or months.
Slashdot Mirror
What keeps a competitor from setting up a similar robotic production line and selling goods for less? Why wouldn't prices drop due to competition?
So? Times change. Why shouldn't we re-examine old laws in the face of a new problem? Maybe unemployment is a bigger concern than some protection enacted to help, for example, 1930s coal miners?
That "drop" is an unemployed person who finally found a job. Why doesn't he or she matter?
We should re-examine (not necessarily "cut") parts of these:
- The Davis Bacon Act
- The Lacey Act
- The National Labor Relations Act
- The Americans With Disabilities Act
- The Controlled Substances Act
- The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
- The Family and Medical Leave Act
- The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
- The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII
- The Employment Non-Discrimination Act
That's just a starting list. There are numerous state and local laws that make employing people more expensive and risky.
Robots are not covered by any of these acts. Companies choosing robots over people are not burdened by the cost of complying with these acts. You can't argue that a minority person won't be able to get a job because of discrimination when you're also arguing they won't be able to get a job because robots took away all the jobs.
It's interesting that you're worried about worker protections based on problems from the past, often things from 50 or 75 years ago. Meanwhile, the topic is about some distant future where no one can get a job due to automation. Why can't we re-examine laws when circumstances change?
As automation lowers the cost of producing goods toward zero, a smaller wage should buy more goods and living standards can improve even as wages go down.
(Of course, this whole discussion is silly because automation is as limited as anything else. But if you believe in automation replacing almost everyone, then you have to also accept that it will drastically cut the costs of goods.)
I'm not sure how that is an argument for artificially keeping people unemployed between now and whatever distant future you imagine. Wages could be higher if non-wage costs associated with employing someone or doing business were lower -- of course this depends on the supply of people to do the job.
Is there really an argument against considering changes to laws to help employers employ people?
Maybe we should re-examine every law, regulation, and employer mandate that makes it more expensive or more risky to hire people or conduct business that would employ people?
If you set 11000 Libraries of Congress on fire, it would be enough to put the fire out.
Who do you think are the victims of crimes in Chicago?
What's the best outfit to wear when talking to dogs?
You probably shouldn't want to influence the world. People who would say they "want to influence the world" generally lack the humility needed to avoid accidentally or recklessly making things worse for the world as a result of their influence.
There are only 3 hard drive makers left. Hitachi is not one of them.
They already forcibly herd all the kids together in the government schools to infect each other with diseases and bring them home to infect the adult population. If you want to keep the government out of your body, then you need to get it out of your family, away from your children, and out of your business.
I know. In the US, the courts serve the financial interests of lawyers as much as (or more than) they serve justice.
Huawei copied the code. Arista just made the command line commands look the same (according to the article).
Can you copyright a CLI language? I'm not sure you can.
Do you really mean "cannot be sued"? Or are you saying you think the people suing would lose in court?
In the US, the employer would be sued because defending against lawsuits is expensive. So you sue anyone with money. Then you make a deal to drop the lawsuit in exchange for some money -- more than the $0 you deserve, but less than it costs the employer to have his lawyers fight you in court.
You don't need to have a winning case.
In the US, the employer probably has liability insurance that will pay most of the money. I would guess the liability insurance company probably requires the employer not to hire felons -- or charges a much higher premium to employers who hire felons.
What if they find out anyway? If someone hires a thief to work with children and then the thief steals from the child's family, can the employer be sued? Is the government declaration a shield against liability?
We could make it harder to sue or less profitable to sue if you lose. But that would mean some companies could escape liability even though they knew they were hiring felons. What does the anti-corporate crowd on Slashdot suggest for this?
One possible answer is a government funded liability pool. Governments could insure against these lawsuits as a way to help felons keep out of trouble in the future. Of course, this would (correctly) be called a taxpayer giveaway to companies and ex-cons.
It seems like the only solution is for the culture to be less punitive. Against felons and companies and everyone else. Look for that to happen when US politics stops being primarily about "us vs. them". Not soon.
Because driving past a high crime area on the way to give out traffic tickets is the same as having an outpost there for a few weeks?
Did you use due process? What standard of evidence? What's "cause"? Is there a law that has charter revocation as a punishment for violating it, or are you just making up ways you'd like to hurt people? Are you justly compensating the innocent people when you take their property -- their ownership in the corporation?
Centralizing police around other police seems counterproductive and inefficient. If police are going to protect and serve citizens, they should be distributed near the citizens. If they're going to catch criminals or patrol to deter criminals, they should be distributed near the crime areas.
Not for crime. Police cars just give out traffic tickets.
2-3 specially outfitted RVs that can all park in the highest crime area. Add a couple cars.
I would guess there's relatively little crime within a block of the police station. Police should create a mobile platform and move the police stations to where the crime happens every few weeks or months.