Managers are most professional businesses can't bring themselves to fire people. It's left to upper management to have a layoff where they drop all low rated workers, unpopular workers, old workers, and outdated workers at the same time.
Backing over children is a tragic problem. It looks like it might be more common (about four children per 100,000) but that may include injuries (in which case it would be less common).
An average 1,297 children die (two children per 100,000) because of guns each year. And 5,790 are treated for injuries
OTH, a lot more people own cars (70%) than own guns (42%). If more people owned guns, more children would die because of guns assuming the rate remained the same.
While I stay away from guns myself (I have grandkids*), the National Shooting Sports Foundation estimates there are roughly 5 million to 10 million AR-15 rifles owned in the United States.
It only takes one to kill 50 people in under 5 minutes. It is in the wealthy people's self interest. I personally think they plan on plundering the U.S. and then leaving. Or they are daft idiots who've lost contact with reality. Hard to say which one is correct. Maybe both.
--- *guns are a big risk to kids. guns bought to protect kids often end up killing them.
Or, as in brazil 1,000 times a year they kidnap you, your kids, your spouse. Sometimes they kill you.
Or as in france revolution, the russian revolution, the chinese revolution,....
It really serves the interests of the wealthy to make sure the masses or happy if they don't want to lose everything and also spend years in a labor camp.
Monico is only safe as long as democracy lasts. Once democracy is done, Monico is a fat plum waiting to be plucked by someone's army.
Add some frozen shrimp, a little cream, or butter, some extra frozen vegetables, one of several kinds of oils, one of a dozen seasonings (curry powder will do wonder for many tv dinners). And so on.
I have a friend who has 30 years experience who hasn't even gotten one call back for an interview. With 7 years til retirement, he's too old. 7 years is longer than most young people will stay at a job these days.
The labor shortages are as real as they are portrayed to be.
There is no minimum wage low enough to prevent automation once the machines are reliable.
The minimum wage comments are just a cover for the fact Jack in the Box was going to automate anyway.
One robot maintenance worker making $80k will replace 60 employees making $18k to $22k per year. Prices will not be lowered. The $1.2 million in salary won't enter the local economy and won't be circulating in the local economy available to purchase jack in the box hamburgers.
It's not really JB's fault. It's going to happen everywhere. JB just doesn't see the tragedy of the commons which is coming.
38% of jobs are estimated to go away in under 20 years. New jobs won't be created fast enough.
And folks are more likely to report lazy co-workers who are running a consulting business from their desk (true story) if that person is making more money than they are.
There are these things called "rivers" and "creeks" running thru the country.
And there is this white stuff that turns to water every spring too.
However, I'll grant that damages to houston were equal to their federal income tax last year.
But you might want to consider the other years they send that much money which is spread to disasters in other states a well a the military, etc. etc. etc.
Oh come on. Even you have to know it's not a myth.
Some companies take advantage of female employees. Have for *decades*. That includes both male and female bosses
Easiest solution is to publish salary and benefits compensation by employee along with the hours worked each month and year. Even that won't capture things like the brilliant idea person or the super salesperson- but they can be measured by other metrics.
Women are no better than men at this. Before I retired, their tendency to hire 100% female staffs was blatant. Likewise those with mixed staffs to give plum assignments to their female supervisors.
it was all in the name of diversity.
It was abusive at the lower levels to the point where 70% of the supervisers were female up to the just below the executive level.
But here's the problem.
The executive level was literally *all* 50+ year old white males. Not a single minority or female (they had only one female when I started). I can't imagine why they were so freaky at the lower levels to try and "average" things out.
Because, if you didn't know if you would be among the workers making 30% less,
would you pick a system where 50% of the workers arbitrarily make 30% less pay for the same work or a system where the pay for 100% of the workers was roughly the same?
I would pick the second system. I wouldn't want 50/50 odds of getting shafted.
---
I *do* think that they need to consider all the benefits, years of experience, hours worked, productivity, and so on in addition to salary however.
I once worked at a place where men were forced to work weekends without extra hourly compensation because it was considered too dangerous for females to work weekends. It pissed me off and took me about 9 months to find a new position.
I didn't mind working weekends- but I did want to be forgiven from the 9am monday meeting after I worked til 10pm sunday night. Compensation would have been nice too. That never happened.
But you may be rationalizing because you are currently a "winner" under the system. The system needs to be fair to everyone.
And that means mostly gender neutral standards for pay and non-secret salary and benefits information.
You only need to pass one law really. All compensation (vacation, salary, money spent on training, paid and unpaid time off) must be published monthly with an annual total.
If you pay your good employees less, they will leave when faced with that fact.
It's not even legal in some states any more to fire employees who talk about salary.
However, if the men are being forced to come in on weekends alone while females get to work regular office hours because it's "too dangerous" for the females- then the men deserve more money.
That's not a random example by the way.
There are ways this can all be made gender neutral.
Same hours, same pay is certainly a basic one.
Another factor is employees who change jobs for higher pay are aggressive employees.
Normalizing pay could reduce the benefit of going to a new job in terms of pay. So, by the rule of unintended consequences some other form of compensation would be found such as extra training when the person is onboarded. Some kind of signing bonus. Etc.
I think on balance this article supports the parent post's assertions. She says that recreational dna testing is real testing and real science but that there is a low coorelation between dna and race, some of the dna companies only test 1% of the dna, spurious hits for alleged american indian dna markers are found on many different continents in four other 'races'.
She concludes... --- We must weigh the risks and benefits of genetic ancestry testing, and as we do so, the scientific community must break its silence and make clear the limitations and potential dangers. Just as the American Society of Human Genetics recently published a series of recommendations regarding direct-to-consumer genetic tests that make health-related claims (20), we encourage ASHG and other professional genetic and anthropological associations to develop policy statements regarding genetic ancestry testing. ---
So- while I didn't validate the entire post, the lead point checks out so the rest would probably check out too. It's certainly credible that some testing companies in the field might have issues (esp the one that tests only 1% of the dna).
A couple points tho. The technology is going to be much better at building likely (but not certainly) family trees. The police have used the technology to solve cold case crimes by locating likely relatives to the DNA associated with the cold crime.
On the part of the medical industry- there is some corporate turf protection. They really don't want the companies that release full genetic maps to associate those with medically useful information. Many people have done so successfully however, identifying risks in time to treat them while they are still very minor.
One argument I see against genetic testing is that it might identify a high risk you will die from something. This seems like a young person's concern to me. Most everyone I know now is planning for death and has a pretty good idea of their likely maximum life span (mine's about 78). Genetic testing (by a doctor) revealed several genetic issues I have which affected my medications. The biggest is that I can't use regular B vitamins very well. My body doesn't "folate" them properly so I have much better results from folated B vitamins. The point being that yes, unsupervised genetic testing might show a high risk and some people might commit suicide but many more will identify risks that can be mitigated.
At least one child died because of the huge increase in the price of epi-pens.
There was no excuse to raise the prices. It took the free market close to a year and a half to recover and address the problem. That's a problem with barriers to entry vs the myth that the free market can handle everything. It can't.
Unlimited capitalism always leads to unlimited fraud. You have to have regulators in there. But then inevitably, the regulators are captured until something goes horrifically wrong and there is reform.
Slashdot Mirror
Managers are most professional businesses can't bring themselves to fire people. It's left to upper management to have a layoff where they drop all low rated workers, unpopular workers, old workers, and outdated workers at the same time.
Backing over children is a tragic problem. It looks like it might be more common (about four children per 100,000) but that may include injuries (in which case it would be less common).
An average 1,297 children die (two children per 100,000) because of guns each year. And 5,790 are treated for injuries
http://www.kidsandcars.org/how...
OTH, a lot more people own cars (70%) than own guns (42%). If more people owned guns, more children would die because of guns assuming the rate remained the same.
While I stay away from guns myself (I have grandkids*), the National Shooting Sports Foundation estimates there are roughly 5 million to 10 million AR-15 rifles owned in the United States.
It only takes one to kill 50 people in under 5 minutes. It is in the wealthy people's self interest. I personally think they plan on plundering the U.S. and then leaving. Or they are daft idiots who've lost contact with reality. Hard to say which one is correct. Maybe both.
---
*guns are a big risk to kids. guns bought to protect kids often end up killing them.
Or, as in brazil 1,000 times a year they kidnap you, your kids, your spouse. Sometimes they kill you.
Or as in france revolution, the russian revolution, the chinese revolution, ....
It really serves the interests of the wealthy to make sure the masses or happy if they don't want to lose everything and also spend years in a labor camp.
Monico is only safe as long as democracy lasts. Once democracy is done, Monico is a fat plum waiting to be plucked by someone's army.
It's really easy to customize microwave meals.
Add some frozen shrimp, a little cream, or butter, some extra frozen vegetables, one of several kinds of oils, one of a dozen seasonings (curry powder will do wonder for many tv dinners). And so on.
You get the low cost, higher k-cal and quality.
I have a friend who has 30 years experience who hasn't even gotten one call back for an interview. With 7 years til retirement, he's too old. 7 years is longer than most young people will stay at a job these days.
The labor shortages are as real as they are portrayed to be.
2% a year. More like 5% in food tho. Many food products are up 25% or more in the last 5 years.
There is no minimum wage low enough to prevent automation once the machines are reliable.
The minimum wage comments are just a cover for the fact Jack in the Box was going to automate anyway.
One robot maintenance worker making $80k will replace 60 employees making $18k to $22k per year. Prices will not be lowered. The $1.2 million in salary won't enter the local economy and won't be circulating in the local economy available to purchase jack in the box hamburgers.
It's not really JB's fault. It's going to happen everywhere. JB just doesn't see the tragedy of the commons which is coming.
38% of jobs are estimated to go away in under 20 years. New jobs won't be created fast enough.
Absolutely.
And folks are more likely to report lazy co-workers who are running a consulting business from their desk (true story) if that person is making more money than they are.
Don't have to manage my boss. I retired at 51. But I was corporate for 12 years and small company for 18 years before that.
Everything you say is helpful.
Yet we have all seen people who did all those things and got shafted anyway.
And when they do the above and they get shafted we often find racism, gender bias, age bias, religious bias, etc.
One way to detect that bias is with large studies.
Another easy way to prevent bias is non-secret salaries and benefits.
Oh come on, you know that's bullshit.
Outside of union shops, piecework shops, and jobs with high turnover, 50% or more of your pay has to do with how well your boss likes you.
It's also political. Flood maps are subject to enormous pressure by developers and local politicians.
We've had three 500 years floods in the last 15 years in my area.
There are these things called "rivers" and "creeks" running thru the country.
And there is this white stuff that turns to water every spring too.
However, I'll grant that damages to houston were equal to their federal income tax last year.
But you might want to consider the other years they send that much money which is spread to disasters in other states a well a the military, etc. etc. etc.
Perhaps it is because I use unformatted text in my slashdot posts because using the html tag codes for line breaks was driving me crazy.
In some ways Slashdot is very antiquated.
Nothing wrong with negotiating your salary as long as the end result is public information.
Unfairness thrives on secrecy.
Oh come on. Even you have to know it's not a myth.
Some companies take advantage of female employees. Have for *decades*. That includes both male and female bosses
Easiest solution is to publish salary and benefits compensation by employee along with the hours worked each month and year. Even that won't capture things like the brilliant idea person or the super salesperson- but they can be measured by other metrics.
Women are no better than men at this. Before I retired, their tendency to hire 100% female staffs was blatant. Likewise those with mixed staffs to give plum assignments to their female supervisors.
it was all in the name of diversity.
It was abusive at the lower levels to the point where 70% of the supervisers were female up to the just below the executive level.
But here's the problem.
The executive level was literally *all* 50+ year old white males. Not a single minority or female (they had only one female when I started). I can't imagine why they were so freaky at the lower levels to try and "average" things out.
Why.
Because, if you didn't know if you would be among the workers making 30% less,
would you pick
a system where 50% of the workers arbitrarily make 30% less pay for the same work
or
a system where the pay for 100% of the workers was roughly the same?
I would pick the second system. I wouldn't want 50/50 odds of getting shafted.
---
I *do* think that they need to consider all the benefits, years of experience, hours worked, productivity, and so on in addition to salary however.
I once worked at a place where men were forced to work weekends without extra hourly compensation because it was considered too dangerous for females to work weekends. It pissed me off and took me about 9 months to find a new position.
I didn't mind working weekends- but I did want to be forgiven from the 9am monday meeting after I worked til 10pm sunday night. Compensation would have been nice too. That never happened.
But you may be rationalizing because you are currently a "winner" under the system. The system needs to be fair to everyone.
And that means mostly gender neutral standards for pay and non-secret salary and benefits information.
You only need to pass one law really. All compensation (vacation, salary, money spent on training, paid and unpaid time off) must be published monthly with an annual total.
If you pay your good employees less, they will leave when faced with that fact.
It's not even legal in some states any more to fire employees who talk about salary.
However, if the men are being forced to come in on weekends alone while females get to work regular office hours because it's "too dangerous" for the females- then the men deserve more money.
That's not a random example by the way.
There are ways this can all be made gender neutral.
Same hours, same pay is certainly a basic one.
Another factor is employees who change jobs for higher pay are aggressive employees.
Normalizing pay could reduce the benefit of going to a new job in terms of pay. So, by the rule of unintended consequences some other form of compensation would be found such as extra training when the person is onboarded. Some kind of signing bonus. Etc.
I agree, if you just want to know if a particular gene and it's in the 1%, then 1% would be fine.
From the dna expert's post, using only 1% produces false positives with regard to race.
Seemed pretty extraordinary so I thought I would validate one of those claims so I picked deborah bolnick
She does exist
https://liberalarts.utexas.edu...
I couldn't find that statement by her with dna and fraudulent
I did find an article by her on "recreational" dna testing here.
https://anthropology.stanford....
I think on balance this article supports the parent post's assertions. She says that recreational dna testing is real testing and real science but that there is a low coorelation between dna and race, some of the dna companies only test 1% of the dna, spurious hits for alleged american indian dna markers are found on many different continents in four other 'races'.
She concludes...
---
We must weigh the risks and benefits of
genetic ancestry testing, and as we do so, the
scientific community must break its silence
and make clear the limitations and potential
dangers. Just as the American Society of
Human Genetics recently published a series of
recommendations regarding direct-to-consumer
genetic tests that make health-related
claims (20), we encourage ASHG and other
professional genetic and anthropological associations
to develop policy statements regarding
genetic ancestry testing.
---
So- while I didn't validate the entire post, the lead point checks out so the rest would probably check out too. It's certainly credible that some testing companies in the field might have issues (esp the one that tests only 1% of the dna).
A couple points tho. The technology is going to be much better at building likely (but not certainly) family trees. The police have used the technology to solve cold case crimes by locating likely relatives to the DNA associated with the cold crime.
On the part of the medical industry- there is some corporate turf protection. They really don't want the companies that release full genetic maps to associate those with medically useful information. Many people have done so successfully however, identifying risks in time to treat them while they are still very minor.
One argument I see against genetic testing is that it might identify a high risk you will die from something. This seems like a young person's concern to me. Most everyone I know now is planning for death and has a pretty good idea of their likely maximum life span (mine's about 78). Genetic testing (by a doctor) revealed several genetic issues I have which affected my medications. The biggest is that I can't use regular B vitamins very well. My body doesn't "folate" them properly so I have much better results from folated B vitamins. The point being that yes, unsupervised genetic testing might show a high risk and some people might commit suicide but many more will identify risks that can be mitigated.
The U.S. averages 640 people freezing to death per year already.
Even a 1% increase would be 6 more people frozen to death.
Humans are really bad dealing with high impact, low probability problems.
This is one of those cases.
I wouldn't have a thermostat that ran over the internet personally.
And I wouldn't use an internet service that said they might mess with thermostats.
And if they did, and someone dies, I would want them to go to jail for murder.
Because they are doing it out of pure malice.
Before I retired (early), I *often* outproduced my co-workers because I took more time to think and much less time to "do".
Spending time learning is also productivity. I would often know a way of doing things which took 1% (or less) as long as co-workers.
So you really need to watch the questions you are asking and the assumptions you are making about what is work, what is productivity, and so on.
Sometimes, the best thing you can do for your productivity is to take a break and go for a walk.
You just have to stay balanced about it.
At least one child died because of the huge increase in the price of epi-pens.
There was no excuse to raise the prices. It took the free market close to a year and a half to recover and address the problem. That's a problem with barriers to entry vs the myth that the free market can handle everything. It can't.
Unlimited capitalism always leads to unlimited fraud. You have to have regulators in there. But then inevitably, the regulators are captured until something goes horrifically wrong and there is reform.
A lot of older hearing aid technology is sold to hunters for under $100. It was high tech 20 or even 10 years ago.
The high price of hearing aids doesn't makes sense any more so I suspect it has a historical basis or a medicaid basis.