Because if the price is right, they'll live with discomfort. When hiring "regular" employees, multiple typically apply, and thus managers have a choice of hiring a candidate willing to come in to a desk. If managers are going to accept remote up front, they may figure it's cheaper to get an offshored worker with approximately the same skills.
There could be some personality filtering going on: those who can accept heavier pressure are more likely to move up into management.
It's more or less the Peter Principle: you raise up until you hit your pressure limit.
My wife rejected a management position that paid more than her current position because it was more stressful. She used to do that kind of work so she knows what's involved. She prefers to save some energy for family and friends. Because we have 2 white-collar incomes, we don't have significant financial pressures (knock on wood). Time is a scarcer resource than money for us.
For example, when in management, she had to deal with problem employees, sometimes stay late to resolve logjams, get urgent vendor/shipment-related calls on the weekend, etc. Her non-management job has a fairly narrow role such that she's not nearly as often thrashed around by miscellaneous issues popping up.
You kind of have to have "no life" to be a manager in most orgs, or the work-world ends up being your life, such as an enjoyment in shmoozing with customers, etc.
I never had trouble finding a job as a programmer until I started looking for remote work.
You may have to ask for less money and let them know you are willing to accept less in exchange for being remote. They later may change their mind if you are highly productive.
Whether remote work is "good" or not can be debated, but it makes many managers uncomfortable.
Most of the roof doesn't show much from the ground. It's a lot of money for something people only see a little of. They'll spend "custom" money on things that people see.
Bozo the Clown would have been a better choice [than Hillary]
That's exactly who got elected. How's he doing so far?
Pretty much what you'd expect of Bozo: making enemies out of allies, friends out of enemies, bumbling around honking on Twitter, wearing frumpy golf pants, taking credit for imaginary victories, and blaming others for real setbacks.
You may get reported if the kid lies and claims to teachers etc. you outright are not feeding them, but that's another matter. That's a truth problem, not a food problem.
Let there be fancy versions for those that want to pay for them and I'll just stick with the basis commodity version.
Those who don't care about style typically will buy older (existing) houses. You can get a bigger markup if you build new houses in the new styles. There's a phrase for this principle I think, but I don't remember it right now.
I used a 20 year old soundex implementation to correct street names that were misspelled on home loan applications. My boss's boss called it AI.
That's how us ol' fogies can survive in a fast-changing fad-based world: take good ol' road-tested tech, and hide it behind a fancy interface and buzzwords.
It's not a Commodore-64 BBS, but a "budget-friendly cloud service".
We are already moving that way with things like structurally insulated panels (SIPs). Instead of framing walls on site, insulating them, and then putting up OSB/plywood, SIPS are manufactured in a factory and then just trucked to the site and literally tipped up and bolted down. They already have all the channeling for running wires and the like.
The problem is that when something becomes a commodity, alternatives become fashionable. Styling often turns away from the easiest-to-make approach. People will want roundish or lumpy or stones or something and reject rectangular panels. Many pay a premium for something in-style.
Similarly, standard internal CRUD-ish application building COULD have been more automated and simplified IF the UI styles didn't keep changing. We went from desktop GUI's to HTML pages to JS-centric pages that work desktop-ish to "responsive" device-size-sensitive, to who knows what next, 3D holograms manipulated by hand gestures? brain implants? I don't see that the current styles are better than the desktop GUI's from the 90's, sometimes even worse. And all the talk of running major in-house B-to-B apps on phones is largely not happening, only select features that can be handled with a side app.
Visual fads seem to be a step or two ahead of automation in many things. Maybe AI will change that. If not, thank fad-chasers for your job.
Maybe Trump U will become the best deal in town. Automating snake-oil marketing may turn out to be difficult. There's evidence people would rather be bamboozled by a charismatic human than by a bot.
This does not automatically mean your job will be automated completely, but your job will change.
It's true many will become inspectors and explainers of the results of AI/automation and less so direct "makers" of content; but if that reduces the number of people needed to do a given job by say even 1/3, then unemployment will skyrocket. You'd have about a 2/3 chance of keeping your job.
It's possible it could make our GDP go up such that there's more total exchanges being made, creating jobs elsewhere. After all, it would seem if machines can crank stuff out, then limits of what people can potentially have goes up.
HOWEVER, it may take a while for our economy to self-correct by shifting resources to take advantage of that new capacity, or it may self-correct too slowly, and politicians will be reluctant to assist the change because it's uncharted territory with uncharted consequences.
New technologies of the past created relatively low-skilled new jobs when it replaced others. That may not be the case this time. People may need serious skill upgrades to get the "bot-era" jobs.
I could name problems coming from ANY corner of such. Sure, if voters, law-makers etc. behave in an "ideal" way problems may be averted, but there's a reason idealism is called "idealism".
Right-wingers are just as likely to screw up the system as lefties, if not more so. They just tend to do it different ways. Humans are imperfect. That's not news.
Indeed. Donny has proven more of a barker than a biter. But the Bully Pulpit of the Prez can embarrass companies into at least token action, kind of like the F35 price "cuts".
It reminds me of an old Soviet proverb: "We pretend to work and the gov't pretends to pay us."
So Trump fakes pressure and co's fake reaction, and it all makes for glorious Fake News.
Slashdot Mirror
c:\programs\McAfee\Uninstall.exe
On the evilness scale, Google and MS are in the same neighborhood, although MS has a Yuuuuge pedigree.
One could use a genetic algorithm to evolve a solution if time were not an issue. However, the hard part may be defining/building a ranking test.
Google: "Let's call it 'cash', I mean 'cache', and patent it."
Because if the price is right, they'll live with discomfort. When hiring "regular" employees, multiple typically apply, and thus managers have a choice of hiring a candidate willing to come in to a desk. If managers are going to accept remote up front, they may figure it's cheaper to get an offshored worker with approximately the same skills.
There could be some personality filtering going on: those who can accept heavier pressure are more likely to move up into management.
It's more or less the Peter Principle: you raise up until you hit your pressure limit.
My wife rejected a management position that paid more than her current position because it was more stressful. She used to do that kind of work so she knows what's involved. She prefers to save some energy for family and friends. Because we have 2 white-collar incomes, we don't have significant financial pressures (knock on wood). Time is a scarcer resource than money for us.
For example, when in management, she had to deal with problem employees, sometimes stay late to resolve logjams, get urgent vendor/shipment-related calls on the weekend, etc. Her non-management job has a fairly narrow role such that she's not nearly as often thrashed around by miscellaneous issues popping up.
You kind of have to have "no life" to be a manager in most orgs, or the work-world ends up being your life, such as an enjoyment in shmoozing with customers, etc.
You may have to ask for less money and let them know you are willing to accept less in exchange for being remote. They later may change their mind if you are highly productive.
Whether remote work is "good" or not can be debated, but it makes many managers uncomfortable.
Most of the roof doesn't show much from the ground. It's a lot of money for something people only see a little of. They'll spend "custom" money on things that people see.
Pretty much what you'd expect of Bozo: making enemies out of allies, friends out of enemies, bumbling around honking on Twitter, wearing frumpy golf pants, taking credit for imaginary victories, and blaming others for real setbacks.
It's official, AI lacks horse-sense.
Gotta be from the ACME Think Tank.
"I told you taxes were sky-rocketing!"
I bet this is fake. "Anonymous coward".
You may get reported if the kid lies and claims to teachers etc. you outright are not feeding them, but that's another matter. That's a truth problem, not a food problem.
Those who don't care about style typically will buy older (existing) houses. You can get a bigger markup if you build new houses in the new styles. There's a phrase for this principle I think, but I don't remember it right now.
Outsource the work without giving away intended use, and claim you did it all by yourself.
That's how us ol' fogies can survive in a fast-changing fad-based world: take good ol' road-tested tech, and hide it behind a fancy interface and buzzwords.
It's not a Commodore-64 BBS, but a "budget-friendly cloud service".
So it was, "Dear Google AI, please help me fix my Amazon AI".
6. Split up the processing and run it on unsuspecting bot-netted PC's
That's big money in the 3rd world. It's partly why Americans win fewer international programming contests: the prize means less in USA dollars.
The problem is that when something becomes a commodity, alternatives become fashionable. Styling often turns away from the easiest-to-make approach. People will want roundish or lumpy or stones or something and reject rectangular panels. Many pay a premium for something in-style.
Similarly, standard internal CRUD-ish application building COULD have been more automated and simplified IF the UI styles didn't keep changing. We went from desktop GUI's to HTML pages to JS-centric pages that work desktop-ish to "responsive" device-size-sensitive, to who knows what next, 3D holograms manipulated by hand gestures? brain implants? I don't see that the current styles are better than the desktop GUI's from the 90's, sometimes even worse. And all the talk of running major in-house B-to-B apps on phones is largely not happening, only select features that can be handled with a side app.
Visual fads seem to be a step or two ahead of automation in many things. Maybe AI will change that. If not, thank fad-chasers for your job.
Maybe Trump U will become the best deal in town. Automating snake-oil marketing may turn out to be difficult. There's evidence people would rather be bamboozled by a charismatic human than by a bot.
It's true many will become inspectors and explainers of the results of AI/automation and less so direct "makers" of content; but if that reduces the number of people needed to do a given job by say even 1/3, then unemployment will skyrocket. You'd have about a 2/3 chance of keeping your job.
It's possible it could make our GDP go up such that there's more total exchanges being made, creating jobs elsewhere. After all, it would seem if machines can crank stuff out, then limits of what people can potentially have goes up.
HOWEVER, it may take a while for our economy to self-correct by shifting resources to take advantage of that new capacity, or it may self-correct too slowly, and politicians will be reluctant to assist the change because it's uncharted territory with uncharted consequences.
New technologies of the past created relatively low-skilled new jobs when it replaced others. That may not be the case this time. People may need serious skill upgrades to get the "bot-era" jobs.
I could name problems coming from ANY corner of such. Sure, if voters, law-makers etc. behave in an "ideal" way problems may be averted, but there's a reason idealism is called "idealism".
Right-wingers are just as likely to screw up the system as lefties, if not more so. They just tend to do it different ways. Humans are imperfect. That's not news.
Indeed. Donny has proven more of a barker than a biter. But the Bully Pulpit of the Prez can embarrass companies into at least token action, kind of like the F35 price "cuts".
It reminds me of an old Soviet proverb: "We pretend to work and the gov't pretends to pay us."
So Trump fakes pressure and co's fake reaction, and it all makes for glorious Fake News.