For me, the new language features should be added, but their usage should correlate to being able to solve a problem better or faster, or more completely, or something like that. I see too many developers focus on "new" for the sake of "new" only. I don't see the OP as being ludditic, but focused on "how does this new thing actually improve things". Many new features in a given language are either not useful in a given scenario, or would cause the developer to have to take something that works and re-implement it, with the attendant question of "how is this making my application better".
What I consider funny is that the whole premise of how.net was sold to dev shops. No memory management to have to deal with, right? Not so, at least for VB.net. Declare a form? Have to call dispose on it. The third party grid control set we use, we have to call dispose on many things created for those grids.
Why "dispose" is ok and "delete" is not seems to have come down to "you bought the tool, suck it up".
Yeah, I get that dispose is there to clean up other allocated resources, but the memory is not freed either in those cases. And RAII handles all cases without having to have dispose like kludges tacked on.
"Even with lower tax rates, it is just too compelling to move jobs to where labor rates are 1/4 to 1/3 the rate in the U.S."
When I was younger, conservatives used to argue about "unintended side effects". Usually about the bleeding heart liberals efforts.
But no matter. The unintended consequence here is that the money to pay those labor rates is moving to the countries. But where are these products being sold? For many, right here in the US. But the US workers that the US economy is dependent on are not making as much as they used to ( period and inflation adjusted ), and some have been laid off. So, less money chasing these goods and services. Market theory says? Lower prices.
If someone overseas can do my job cheaper because the cost of living is significantly lower for them, you are right something is wrong. But it would be unfair to look at it as me ripping others off.
"You are charging more than your efforts are worth, therefore either your prices are too high, or you aren't working as efficiently or as hard as you should, or you aren't good at your line of work and should be doing something completely different where your efforts don't represent waste. Taxes and legal restrictions on you and your industry may be excessive. You and/or your industry may not be sufficiently automated"
I have to charge enough to cover my costs. Laying the discrepancy solely to efficiency or my working hard or not ( which may have some truth in individual cases on both side of the divide ) is pretty nonsensical. If the costs are lower elsewhere, those persons will be able to undercut me. Yes, I can go looking harder for economies and efficiences, but *so can they*.
"Taxes and legal restrictions on you and your industry may be excessive."
Or they may be just right where they should be, and lower than they should be elsewhere. Leading to a race to the bottom.
"You and/or your industry may not be sufficiently automated".
Perhaps, but the same argument applies to the elsewhere case.
"Looked at from the other direction, if your country is flooded with cheap foreign goods, the cost of living falls, and you can live just as well on less money. You only lose if you were foolish enough to get deeply in debt, and now are less able to pay off your debt. (But "a fool and his money are soon parted" applies under all conditions.) "
Does it really? My housing costs, my car costs, my feeding myself costs have not gone down. Except for optional cheap trinkets I am not buying, where is this "cost of living falling" observed?
Also note, that this argument only applies to those who have jobs. And when this cheap foreign goods influx starts, jobs here start getting scarcer. The Market does work, ( its effects may not be pleasant ), this cannot help but happen. Then, pressure is on for wages to fall here, which will lead to pricing here to fall. But over a long time of adjusting, which will not be much fun for rank and file ( which is most of us ).
"Time is the final defense against cheap labor pools. Absent slavery (which has its own disadvantages), cheap labor is made possible by low living costs and widespread poverty. As cheap laborers bring in money they purchase more. Prices rise and they consider their time more valuable, so they charge more for their efforts (by various methods). Eventually, they are no longer cheap labor. "Problem" solved."
True, except that the cheap labor pools are taking steps to see that their labor remains cheap. So, the only ones trading fairly seem to be us. And note, again, this process takes time. Time that people actually have to live ( or die ) through. To what end? That someone here can now afford a few more Mercedes than they could before....
"Long term, the absence of force and fraud is the greatest promoter of well-being, and the government is everywhere the most significant source of both."
Yeah, but China, India, et al still have theirs. Why do we have to show up to the gunfight unarmed?
""Globalization" -- free trade, i.e. freedom, applied everywhere -- means that the greatest efficiencies are allowed universally. That means the smallest waste of human effort, of human lives. Those who support protectionism have no problem wasting human lives."
free trade freedom. Unless you want to argue that we don't have that, which I would have to agree with. I don't think we will get it any time soon between and betwixt nations, anyway.
"All it requires is a year's worth of patience to wait for the pricedrop"
He was specific that for him he has about a month ( free of cheaters, who presumably need time to write the cheats ) to really enjoy the game. After that, no love. So, he really cant wait for the price drop at one year.
Not quite. Overdrive is a larger ratio gear. Back in the olden days, top gear ( in the car, not the TV series ) was a 1:1 ratio between the input and output of the transmission. Overdrive is a bigger ratio than that. It, and the 1:1 that "D" gives you can have a "freewheel" to them, which is more like what you describe ( allows the engine to go slower without that causing compression deceleration ). So, if you commonly run in "D" rather than overdrive, you might be wasting a bit of fuel on a lower gear ratio than is most efficient.
"It's especially evident at red lights where the guy in his fast car shoots off when the light turns green, only to get stopped at the next light while the rest of the traffic catches up"
That would describe me. Except that often enough, I make the next light green ( saving me from burning gas sitting ) and the rest of "them" get caught. And in any case, I am ( when in the "pole position" ) not having to drive next to idiots, which makes me safer. You should try it some time, it is lots more fun.:-)
Automation and tools can reduce, or perhaps, eventually eliminate a need for labor. We are not there yet, so that does not yet apply, and, currently, you need workers.
And when all sectors of the economy are all automated and no workers are needed ( really, before then... ) what are things going to look like? Ugly, as you state above, I think.
"Without capital there is no way to get resources and no incentive for the workers to work"
and not
"With capital there is no way to get resources and no incentive for the workers to work".
I think you are incorrect in this assumption. There are many who work for nothing. Called volunteers. There are many who work that they might possess the product of their work.
On resources, how does one get them? You are thinking only in term of buying them. There are other ways one could get resources. Trade. Go and dig them out of wherever they are ( which might mean having to work to build the tools ( which might mean building tools to build tools, ad infinitum ) to dig them out )
Note, I am still not saying that money/capital is bad or should not be used, just that it does not have to be a limiting factor. Noted full well that it *is* a gating factor for a lot of things. But because it is a path ( and the best path we know so far ) to an end does not mean it is the only path.
So, "no way to get resources"? I disagree. "no incentive"? I disagree.
And I am not suggesting slavery ( which would be workers who are coerced and unpaid ).
"We can not feed 6 billion people by gathering food with our bare hands."
I don't recall saying we should try. I am not against tools, up to and including robots.
"As soon as you give a farmer a hoe or a spade he is now a capitalist since he owns some capital. Or give him some land to use exclusively, he is now a capitalist again."
You can make that argument, I am not disputing it. I would say that he/she/it is now both capitalist ( owner of means of production ) and worker ( worker ). I think it is good.
I am exactly and only saying that capital in and of itself does nothing in producing products. Workers do that. And any other objects used by the workers in producting products were the result of workers working, not capital.
As a signal element in deciding what kind of products, how many products, for enabling valuing of products ( by cost vs other things like quality etc ), capital is the best thing we know to date. And it is good at that. I think it's use as a gating factor is not so good. How many people out there have ( or had ) great ideas that would enrich humanity ( and themselves ), but cant act on them because of a lack of capital?
"Unless you mean a system in which no one "owns" anything, though I would say that's the same as a system in which everything has shared ownership of everything and hence everyone is a capitalist as soon as one spade is built."
I think communism has been rightly torn down as a viable ( for populations above tribal size ) economic system. I do think that the notion that workers do not share as much as they ought in the benefits of their work has some weight. Don't construe that as saying that investors are not entitled to a return.
"Sure if the global population is 1,000,000* people capital is optional."
It is optional at any level. I am not arguing that it is efficient, desirable, or any other such argument, only that it is, ultimately, optional.
"And "have to"? You know for a fact it is impossible to have a self sustaining automated system that produces stuff? The sun seems pretty much self sustaining (well over a reasonable time span in terms of humans) without any input from workers and yet produces heat and light just fine."
A, I think that automated self sustaining systems might be possible. But they would have to be built by people first. So, yes, have to to such a point. Then what?
B, The introduction of the sun into this argument seems silly. The sun is not a product of our economy.
"You really think it is a physical impossibility for machines to be built which maintain the existing machines and build new ones so that there is no human labor element necessary going forward?"
It might be. And yes, going forward, maybe you could have such machines. But again, workers would have to build them first. And still, then what?
"Sure it can't be done now, but the human population isn't 1,000,000 now so clearly you aren't restricting this to the current state."
I am not concerned with population levels. 1 or 1 trillion trillion.
"* Yes, the number is plucked from thin air - some number much lower than the current level."
That is not what I said. I said given a choice in believing that something would be produced in two extreme situations, I would believe that all workers and no capital would produce products, and all capital and no workers would produce no products.
I believe that earned wealth is a great thing. I also believe that in earning that wealth, you probably didn't do it as much "by yourself" as you think you did.
"I don't see it as a stupid question, but as a question to point out something
What?"
That it is not "a small percentage of the population" that keeps the country running. That capital doesn't keep anything running ( I would argue, currently, it is preventing things from running here ), workers do.
"And of course labor has existed as long as people. What is the point of making that observation?
In order to address your false dichotomy."
How is it a dichotomy and how is it false?
"Does any of the above mean that those who are fortunate or hard working enough to be wealthy should be able to do stupid things with my tax dollars?
It means they should be able to do stupid things with their tax dollars, but that's a completely different discussion, anyway."
They should be allowed to do almost any stupid thing they want with their private money. Tax money should be used sparingly, wisely and effectively.
Referring to my above, could you get robots with all capital and no workers? No. You could with all workers and no capital. Workers make things, capital controls what is made, when it is made, by whom it is made, &c. But you *have* to have workers. Capital is optional, but usually controlling.
I don't see it as a stupid question, but as a question to point out something. And of course labor has existed as long as people. What is the point of making that observation? And yes, how labor is organized is very important. Does any of the above mean that those who are fortunate or hard working enough to be wealthy should be able to do stupid things with my tax dollars?
I think you know what I mean. That "small percentage that actually keep the country running". If I am in error about what you meant by the phrase, please educate me.
"I'm not sure you meant to use the word "welfare"."
Re-read his post. Pork is "welfare" for the rich. A complete racket by which the rich maintain themselves on our tax dollars rather than going out and earning profits by making products people want to buy.
"small percentage of the population who actually keep the country running"
Which is more likely to work, all workers and no capitalists or all capitalists and no workers? No, they do not keep the country running. They are a big part of the reason that the country is not running well at this point.
Slashdot Mirror
"happens to be Chinese than one born here who can barely graduate high school"
False Dichotomy
I will have a stab at answering.
For me, the new language features should be added, but their usage should correlate to being able to solve a problem better or faster, or more completely, or something like that. I see too many developers focus on "new" for the sake of "new" only. I don't see the OP as being ludditic, but focused on "how does this new thing actually improve things". Many new features in a given language are either not useful in a given scenario, or would cause the developer to have to take something that works and re-implement it, with the attendant question of "how is this making my application better".
What I consider funny is that the whole premise of how .net was sold to dev shops.
No memory management to have to deal with, right? Not so, at least for VB.net. Declare a form? Have to call dispose on it.
The third party grid control set we use, we have to call dispose on many things created for those grids.
Why "dispose" is ok and "delete" is not seems to have come down to "you bought the tool, suck it up".
Yeah, I get that dispose is there to clean up other allocated resources, but the memory is not freed either in those cases.
And RAII handles all cases without having to have dispose like kludges tacked on.
See Command Decision.
Some similarities in plot, but another good movie ( IMHO ).
This ignores the issues of what is in the container, how does it degrade with time and is it toxic or become toxic with time.
In my estimation it would be better to go the other way around.
Corporations should have few rights, lobbying government participating in elections in any way should definitely not be one of them.
"so that the incentive to shift profits around doesn't exist (or exists to the benefit of the US tax base)"
Except that that will not be the last word, will it? The other countries will lower their taxes to keep the money there, and round and round you go.
"Even with lower tax rates, it is just too compelling to move jobs to where labor rates are 1/4 to 1/3 the rate in the U.S."
When I was younger, conservatives used to argue about "unintended side effects". Usually about the bleeding heart liberals efforts.
But no matter. The unintended consequence here is that the money to pay those labor rates is moving to the countries.
But where are these products being sold? For many, right here in the US. But the US workers that the US economy is dependent on are not making as much as they used to ( period and inflation adjusted ), and some have been laid off. So, less money chasing these goods and services.
Market theory says? Lower prices.
^ Complete economic ignorance ^
If someone overseas can do my job cheaper because the cost of living is significantly lower for them, you are right something is wrong. But it would be unfair to look at it as me ripping others off.
"You are charging more than your efforts are worth, therefore either your prices are too high, or you aren't working as efficiently or as hard as you should, or you aren't good at your line of work and should be doing something completely different where your efforts don't represent waste. Taxes and legal restrictions on you and your industry may be excessive. You and/or your industry may not be sufficiently automated"
I have to charge enough to cover my costs. Laying the discrepancy solely to efficiency or my working hard or not ( which may have some truth in individual cases on both side of the divide ) is pretty nonsensical. If the costs are lower elsewhere, those persons will be able to undercut me. Yes, I can go looking harder for economies and efficiences, but *so can they*.
"Taxes and legal restrictions on you and your industry may be excessive."
Or they may be just right where they should be, and lower than they should be elsewhere. Leading to a race to the bottom.
"You and/or your industry may not be sufficiently automated".
Perhaps, but the same argument applies to the elsewhere case.
"Looked at from the other direction, if your country is flooded with cheap foreign goods, the cost of living falls, and you can live just as well on less money. You only lose if you were foolish enough to get deeply in debt, and now are less able to pay off your debt. (But "a fool and his money are soon parted" applies under all conditions.) "
Does it really? My housing costs, my car costs, my feeding myself costs have not gone down. Except for optional cheap trinkets I am not buying, where is this "cost of living falling" observed?
Also note, that this argument only applies to those who have jobs. And when this cheap foreign goods influx starts, jobs here start getting scarcer. The Market does work, ( its effects may not be pleasant ), this cannot help but happen. Then, pressure is on for wages to fall here, which will lead to pricing here to fall. But over a long time of adjusting, which will not be much fun for rank and file ( which is most of us ).
"Time is the final defense against cheap labor pools. Absent slavery (which has its own disadvantages), cheap labor is made possible by low living costs and widespread poverty. As cheap laborers bring in money they purchase more. Prices rise and they consider their time more valuable, so they charge more for their efforts (by various methods). Eventually, they are no longer cheap labor. "Problem" solved."
True, except that the cheap labor pools are taking steps to see that their labor remains cheap. So, the only ones trading fairly seem to be us.
And note, again, this process takes time. Time that people actually have to live ( or die ) through. To what end? That someone here can now afford a few more Mercedes than they could before....
"Long term, the absence of force and fraud is the greatest promoter of well-being, and the government is everywhere the most significant source of both."
Yeah, but China, India, et al still have theirs. Why do we have to show up to the gunfight unarmed?
""Globalization" -- free trade, i.e. freedom, applied everywhere -- means that the greatest efficiencies are allowed universally. That means the smallest waste of human effort, of human lives. Those who support protectionism have no problem wasting human lives."
free trade freedom. Unless you want to argue that we don't have that, which I would have to agree with.
I don't think we will get it any time soon between and betwixt nations, anyway.
"All it requires is a year's worth of patience to wait for the pricedrop"
He was specific that for him he has about a month ( free of cheaters, who presumably need time to write the cheats ) to really enjoy the game. After that, no love. So, he really cant wait for the price drop at one year.
Not quite. Overdrive is a larger ratio gear. Back in the olden days, top gear ( in the car, not the TV series ) was a 1:1 ratio between the input and output of the transmission. Overdrive is a bigger ratio than that. It, and the 1:1 that "D" gives you can have a "freewheel" to them, which is more like what you describe ( allows the engine to go slower without that causing compression deceleration ). So, if you commonly run in "D" rather than overdrive, you might be wasting a bit of fuel on a lower gear ratio than is most efficient.
"It's especially evident at red lights where the guy in his fast car shoots off when the light turns green, only to get stopped at the next light while the rest of the traffic catches up"
That would describe me. Except that often enough, I make the next light green ( saving me from burning gas sitting ) and the rest of "them" get caught. And in any case, I am ( when in the "pole position" ) not having to drive next to idiots, which makes me safer. You should try it some time, it is lots more fun. :-)
Automation and tools can reduce, or perhaps, eventually eliminate a need for labor. We are not there yet, so that does not yet apply, and, currently, you need workers.
And when all sectors of the economy are all automated and no workers are needed ( really, before then... ) what are things going to look like? Ugly, as you state above, I think.
I think you mean
"Without capital there is no way to get resources and no incentive for the workers to work"
and not
"With capital there is no way to get resources and no incentive for the workers to work".
I think you are incorrect in this assumption. There are many who work for nothing. Called volunteers. There are many who work that they might possess the product of their work.
On resources, how does one get them? You are thinking only in term of buying them. There are other ways one could get resources. Trade. Go and dig them out of wherever they are ( which might mean having to work to build the tools ( which might mean building tools to build tools, ad infinitum ) to dig them out )
Note, I am still not saying that money/capital is bad or should not be used, just that it does not have to be a limiting factor. Noted full well that it *is* a gating factor for a lot of things. But because it is a path ( and the best path we know so far ) to an end does not mean it is the only path.
So, "no way to get resources"? I disagree.
"no incentive"? I disagree.
And I am not suggesting slavery ( which would be workers who are coerced and unpaid ).
"We can not feed 6 billion people by gathering food with our bare hands."
I don't recall saying we should try. I am not against tools, up to and including robots.
"As soon as you give a farmer a hoe or a spade he is now a capitalist since he owns some capital. Or give him some land to use exclusively, he is now a capitalist again."
You can make that argument, I am not disputing it. I would say that he/she/it is now both capitalist ( owner of means of production ) and worker ( worker ). I think it is good.
I am exactly and only saying that capital in and of itself does nothing in producing products. Workers do that. And any other objects used by the workers in producting products were the result of workers working, not capital.
As a signal element in deciding what kind of products, how many products, for enabling valuing of products ( by cost vs other things like quality etc ), capital is the best thing we know to date. And it is good at that. I think it's use as a gating factor is not so good. How many people out there have ( or had ) great ideas that would enrich humanity ( and themselves ), but cant act on them because of a lack of capital?
"Unless you mean a system in which no one "owns" anything, though I would say that's the same as a system in which everything has shared ownership of everything and hence everyone is a capitalist as soon as one spade is built."
I think communism has been rightly torn down as a viable ( for populations above tribal size ) economic system. I do think that the notion that workers do not share as much as they ought in the benefits of their work has some weight. Don't construe that as saying that investors are not entitled to a return.
"Sure if the global population is 1,000,000* people capital is optional."
It is optional at any level. I am not arguing that it is efficient, desirable, or any other such argument, only that it is, ultimately, optional.
"And "have to"? You know for a fact it is impossible to have a self sustaining automated system that produces stuff? The sun seems pretty much self sustaining (well over a reasonable time span in terms of humans) without any input from workers and yet produces heat and light just fine."
A, I think that automated self sustaining systems might be possible. But they would have to be built by people first. So, yes, have to to such a point. Then what?
B, The introduction of the sun into this argument seems silly. The sun is not a product of our economy.
"You really think it is a physical impossibility for machines to be built which maintain the existing machines and build new ones so that there is no human labor element necessary going forward?"
It might be. And yes, going forward, maybe you could have such machines. But again, workers would have to build them first. And still, then what?
"Sure it can't be done now, but the human population isn't 1,000,000 now so clearly you aren't restricting this to the current state."
I am not concerned with population levels. 1 or 1 trillion trillion.
"* Yes, the number is plucked from thin air - some number much lower than the current level."
That is not what I said. I said given a choice in believing that something would be produced in two extreme situations, I would believe that all workers and no capital would produce products, and all capital and no workers would produce no products.
I believe that earned wealth is a great thing. I also believe that in earning that wealth, you probably didn't do it as much "by yourself" as you think you did.
"I don't see it as a stupid question, but as a question to point out something
What?"
That it is not "a small percentage of the population" that keeps the country running. That capital doesn't keep anything running ( I would argue, currently, it is preventing things from running here ), workers do.
"And of course labor has existed as long as people. What is the point of making that observation?
In order to address your false dichotomy."
How is it a dichotomy and how is it false?
"Does any of the above mean that those who are fortunate or hard working enough to be wealthy should be able to do stupid things with my tax dollars?
It means they should be able to do stupid things with their tax dollars, but that's a completely different discussion, anyway."
They should be allowed to do almost any stupid thing they want with their private money. Tax money should be used sparingly, wisely and effectively.
Referring to my above, could you get robots with all capital and no workers? No. You could with all workers and no capital. Workers make things, capital controls what is made, when it is made, by whom it is made, &c. But you *have* to have workers. Capital is optional, but usually controlling.
I don't see it as a stupid question, but as a question to point out something. And of course labor has existed as long as people. What is the point of making that observation? And yes, how labor is organized is very important. Does any of the above mean that those who are fortunate or hard working enough to be wealthy should be able to do stupid things with my tax dollars?
I think you know what I mean. That "small percentage that actually keep the country running". If I am in error about what you meant by the phrase, please educate me.
I would ask where the robots came from. Capital cannot produce them, workers do.
"I'm not sure you meant to use the word "welfare"."
Re-read his post. Pork is "welfare" for the rich. A complete racket by which the rich maintain themselves on our tax dollars rather than going out and earning profits by making products people want to buy.
"small percentage of the population who actually keep the country running"
Which is more likely to work, all workers and no capitalists or all capitalists and no workers? No, they do not keep the country running. They are a big part of the reason that the country is not running well at this point.
So.... the female monkeys in heat... Fresh fruit aint good enough for them?