We can easily use technology and get enough seafood.. have you seen how big the ocean is? If we had the will we could set up massive netted farm areas.. it's already being done in some scale for blue fin tuna. For land meat.. we can grow meat via tissue culture in the extreme case. There's already project to gneetically engineer yeast to produce milk and milk proteins. In fact a lot of our caloric intake can come from plant and animal tissue culture. We could grow our calories and produce milk via yeast in large vats. We can have enough water through desalination. These can all be run on nuclear energy with no pollution.
That survey only looked at patents issued on a single day. There are still a couple hundred thousand unexamined patents from the 80s and 90s.. what will the patent term adjustment look like when they issue?
i) Yes, unless it qualifies for a patent term adjustment. ii) virtually every patent issued nowadays is delayed so much that patent term adjustments are virtually guaranteed. You always get it when the USPTO doesn't approve your patent within a specified time as a result of their delays. iii) Yes. iv) If the patent is delayed they can get back royalties from others who independently came up with similar technology during the time in which the patent was being processed -- at least recently new applications are being published within 18 months so this issue is diminished for new filed applications. But then it's still a problem because of the issue referred to in (v).. a company can collect on standards essential technology for extended periods of time and technology can't really advance while someone owns a monopoly for such a long time. v) There isn't only one patent on HDTV you ditz. HDTV is covered by hundreds of patents on the various technologies that comprise it. A single company can have a patent on the audio encoding and a separate one on the video processing aspect -- they can collect on the audio encoding patent when it issues and then collect for an extended period on the video processing part when that issues. In fact many companies have more than one patent on HDTV. Look at how many companies had patents on mp3 technology.. just google it fool.
It is absurd that the USPTO has a massive backlog on patent issuance -- by law, it is expected that a patent term is 20 years from the filing date -- however there is an exception to that rule if the patent is not issued within 2 years -- if the patent is not issued within 2 years (due to a USPTO delay) the clock on that 20 years is paused until the patent issues. There are still hundreds of thousands of patents filed on things like HDTV which havent yet issued. It means that HDTV technology will be patent encumbered for the long term future. Nobody has the incentive to fix it. If you wanted to make an open hardware HDTV, you can't do it royalty free because a lot of the HDTV standards essential technologies are still patented and will STAY patented virtually forever thanks to the USPTO patent backlog. Why would any tech companies object to that? They make money off the patents they filed that got issued PLUS the ones that were filed but the USPTO hasnt taken action on them. Think about it this way if Sony filed two patents on HD technology, they get one of them issued fairly quickly within 2 years.. and then by luck or bribery the USPTO action on the second patent is delayed 19 years just as the first patent is expiring.. then because it's the USPTO's fault that the second patent didnt issue.. they get to claim 17 years of additional monopoly on the HD technology. I am not against patents, I am against infinitely long patents.. which are unconstitutional.. yet in practice the USPTO is enabling it. Let's not forget that the constitution only authorizes patent rights if and only if they enable the advancement of the useful arts and sciences (and those too for limited times).
This means if your laptop has nmap, burp suite, metasploit, or Ida pro etc. and you visit China with it.. you could be arrested when you come back. How freaking stupid is that? Also, a lot of times it's hard to draw the line between debugging tools and penetration testing tools.
I took a few Khan academy courses on MBA stuff, so I can translate it from corporate speak to straight talk:
1. Long range outlook: batteries or fuel cells?
Answer: I have no freaking clue bro.
2. Charging at gas stations?
Answer: Not gonna happen.
3. The volt has poor aesthetics, will the GM skateboard's swappable chassis concept become real?
Answer: Some people are buying ugly, so we'll continue to sell it. I am going to ignore your question about the GM skateboard and swappable chassis (which are never gonna happen btw) and talk about fuel cells instead. Fuel cells -- I know nothing about them.
4. Will I be able to buy a Spark EV in Georgia?
Answer: No, we don't sell to hicks. We would only consider selling you guys a car that isn't ever going to be made.
5. What is Chevy's plans to extend the Voltec system into other models such as the Trax and/or the Equinox?
Answer: Never gonna happen. We still want your money though, so why don't you buy one of our cars that use the same floor mat as a Volt?
6. Why don't you guys advertise the Volt?
Answer: Have you seen the documentary "Who killed the electric car?" starring the EV1? Well, we are setting up the Volt to star in the sequel.
7. Will you guys make hybrid pickups again?
Answer: No, we rather sell you the gas guzzlers and get the oil company kickbacks.
8. Are you guys benefitting from Tesla's open patents?
Answer: Yes, but we'll never admit it. Btw, did you know that GM's vagina is much deeper than anyone else's?
9. Would you guys ever use ultracapacitors?
Answer: What's an ultracapacitor? I am going to have to google that one.
10. Would you make the charging go faster?
Answer: No. Deal with it.
11. How is the upcoming Chevy Bolt going to get 200 miles per charge with a base price of $30,000?
There are no TVs with usable voice control. I rather use a TV without a remote with a knob on the TV that makes me get up from the couch to change volume or channels than the voice control in Samsung Smart TV.
I lol at everyone thinking there is no way to break into and dominate the supposedly saturated TV market. First off, as long as there are people who have money, even the market for pet rocks is not saturated as long as you can put some lipstick on it. Is the market for luxury anything saturated? As long as the human need to show off oneself as superior exists the market will never die. You diamond dust the carbon fiber bezel and make it expensive enough someone will want it. Second, current TV interfaces are horrible and unusable. Using a TV should be as easy as walking into your living room and saying "TV, ESPN" then when you see that ESPN is boring you should be able to say "TV, recommend some popular action movies I haven't seen".. And then a list of choices should pop up. We ALREADY have the voice recognition ability to make this possible. Google Now and Siri work fine with a TV full volume in the background so you can't tell me a TV can't cancel out its own sound. Why is it that Samsung smart tv voice recognition is worse than on a Galaxy phone?? And Samsung smart tv has no natural language query interpretation ability. It can't even identify its own channels!! So basically it's very simple for a company like Apple to make a compelling TV product if they invest resources in it. And that's even assuming they don't buy or create their own Netflix and offer on demand streaming content for subscription. Mind you they have the $$ capital and heavyweight to offer much better content than Netflix. So yeah a compelling and differentiated TV is certainly possible and plausible in spite of the naysayers. Samsung and Google would never be able to deliver on it, only Apple can.
That's just false. The screen power drain is mostly due to the backlight which is no more brighter than any other screen so that won't draw more power. As for the GPU it doesn't have to render the image fully in situations where 1080p suffices.. it can just render at 1080p and then upscale the image to 4k.
Actually the Oculus requires nothing less than a 10K display (5K per eye according to my calculation).. so they need to get to around 2000 ppi... Honestly I am not sure if that is even possible within 20 years.
How many calls do you fools get that you need to screen calls? "Ring Ring.. let me check my douchewatch.. hmm.. not answering!" Answer all your calls. I can see the need for a smartwatch to answer texts though. When someone texts you, respond on your douchewatch with "call me" and then don't answer the phone.
I'm buying the cheaper one so I can gold plate it myself to upgrade it to $17K version so I can show it off to people who would then believe me to be a vastly superior human being than them. That can be my legacy. Here lies a dude who owned a $17K watch. He is so F'ing cool.
How could they release this thing without a technology like Witricity or whole room charging?? It should be able to charge in a room or when you are sitting on the couch and also in the car without having to deliberately place your hand/watch in a specific location.
I mean we have the technology for whole room charging, so why not use it? They have like 100 billion dollars in cash couldn't they have spent a few million and figured out how to put Witricity into the watch? Now even Samsung won't do it until they have Apple does it.. so we have to wait for Apple to get this idea.
Well I know they are reading slashdot cause thats where they got the downfacing IR sensor and vibration messaging idea.. http://ask.slashdot.org/commen... so maybe they will grab this one too.
When choosing a servant, you want to interview them to make sure they aren't anywhere as smart as you. At least now in general, maybe in a specific task.. but in general you don't want them overall smarter than you.
In the future, instead of having a job you will own shares in a factory that has robots. In essence you will own a robot.. and the output in terms of productivity will be your salary (or shareholder dividends). For those who do not invest wisely, the government will provide them some minimal amount via taxation of the shareholders. Or maybe the company directly. I don't know. Vote for for what you like.
Since robots will be doing all the work, the cost of stuff will be dirt cheap. Food will be synthetically produced in giant vats, powered by fusion energy.
This may not work out in our favor over the long term. How soon before they start overtly regulating content?
This Net Neutrality "gift" may turn out to be a trojan horse. There must have be some other way to ensure the net stays neutral without classifying it as a utility subject to government meddling.
Yeh I love how people think wisdom and advice is important, when actually it's actions. Words are a dime a dozen. Study hard and avoid crazy partners that keep you down? Uh, yeah I knew that. Care about your fellow human and don't rob & steal? Ya think? I think you are right, just record some daily activities showing what you were like -- stuff showing you doing things that a good person would be doing (charity, reading a book etc.). Most lectured advice stuff might end up being fake anyway, and downright inapplicable or wrong. Try to put them on a path where they have financial security and good mentors. Finally, the solution should be based on the individual, of which there is no average. So what works for one may not work for the other, you can only hope to find the path of highest success probability.
Why yes duh of course I am super interested in making my fellow Americans suffer economic hardship, what else could my intent be. WTF? Just because I have a better understanding of economics than you doesn't mean I somehow care less about people.
Second, you are saying society gets to pick who gets a job and who doesn't? When you force a minimum wage for jobs it means the jobs that are open for people willing to work for less are closed while the more experienced elites still get to work for their 200k salary. I understand the intent behind it, but wages shouldn't be decided based on what you think a person "deserves" as their salary. If that were the case we should be forcing our corporations into paying our veterans ten times what a top engineer makes.
The best thing for an economy is a reduced production cost. This means that low wages can buy more, and also that shares in a company would pay high dividends. I mean, if you owned a robot that works in a factory (equivalent of owning shares in that factory) wouldn't you be better off if that factory made more money? Notice how with automation the economy has not collapsed? We have more automation than ever before in history yet we also have a large amount of jobs and can afford a lot of things. Even the government gets its cut from it and distributes it as welfare. In the 1950s many people could not afford a tv and a fridge. Yet today nearly everyone can, plus a smartphone and a computer. Low production costs = increased supply and increased affordability.
At which point would you agree there is a shortage? When the salary is $200k but the price of housing has doubled because everyone is making 200k and wants to live in the same location?
Way to spread false information. I suppose it's good in a way. Last thing we need is people who can't be bothered to verify stuff somebody tells them moving to the bay area.
Fact is, $60K is the $30K equivalent in the bay area with 45 minute rush hour commute (Caltrain or drive) to Mountain View (without roommates to share rent). Allocate $1.2K for rent in San Jose and 30% extra for all other expenses. Yeah its tough to live on that but I really want to see what you can do with $30K in Atlanta. With 120K you can be comfortable in the bay area.
Obviously you can keep increasing the salary until you'll find an American able or willing to do the job. But then that means your risk capital expenditure increases. Just about everything you put money into comes with a risk. If you own a business, there is only so much money you are able to gamble. The more risky something is, the reward potential must go up exponentially for someone to invest in it. What am I getting at, if the cost of entry to making a startup or company is high, less such companies will exist -- why would VC's dump money into it. Overall result ---> less products and innovation in the market, higher prices to consumer. So if the prices of everything goes up, how does it help the engineers with their higher salaries?
Fact is that the more engineers in the world we have, the cheaper goods we will get. I mean, what if Apple was the only company able to afford engineers? What if Samsung and non-American companies were barred from selling cell phones? Smartphones would cost an insane amount -- few people would be able to afford it. If less people have smartphones other areas of the economy would be affected too.
And btw, why aren't there americans willing to work for $60K? I mean really, if you have an CS degree + student loan why would you choose to work at McDonald's for $20K? Now I agree that $20K is not a living wage, but $60K.. come on.. even with student loan burden of $800 a month, it's still better than $20K at McDonalds or living on welfare. The monthly payment on a $30,000 student loan (which is slightly above the average 2014 graduate's debt) is approximately $300 (assuming 6.8% interest and a 10-year repayment plan).
So basically I am supposed to believe that computer science graduates rather sit at home or work an unlivable wage at McDonalds than take a job for $60K, which more than easily covers their student debt cost?
Now for engineers, $80K is an unlivable wage? What's the livable wage for a particular degree, that you would agree there is a shortage at?
I guarantee that whatever you force wages to rise to, it will not be enough --- because the price of everything will rise correspondingly plus extra.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...
We can easily use technology and get enough seafood .. have you seen how big the ocean is? If we had the will we could set up massive netted farm areas .. it's already being done in some scale for blue fin tuna. For land meat .. we can grow meat via tissue culture in the extreme case. There's already project to gneetically engineer yeast to produce milk and milk proteins. In fact a lot of our caloric intake can come from plant and animal tissue culture. We could grow our calories and produce milk via yeast in large vats. We can have enough water through desalination. These can all be run on nuclear energy with no pollution.
That survey only looked at patents issued on a single day. There are still a couple hundred thousand unexamined patents from the 80s and 90s .. what will the patent term adjustment look like when they issue?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
i) Yes, unless it qualifies for a patent term adjustment. .. a company can collect on standards essential technology for extended periods of time and technology can't really advance while someone owns a monopoly for such a long time. .. just google it fool.
ii) virtually every patent issued nowadays is delayed so much that patent term adjustments are virtually guaranteed. You always get it when the USPTO doesn't approve your patent within a specified time as a result of their delays.
iii) Yes.
iv) If the patent is delayed they can get back royalties from others who independently came up with similar technology during the time in which the patent was being processed -- at least recently new applications are being published within 18 months so this issue is diminished for new filed applications. But then it's still a problem because of the issue referred to in (v)
v) There isn't only one patent on HDTV you ditz. HDTV is covered by hundreds of patents on the various technologies that comprise it. A single company can have a patent on the audio encoding and a separate one on the video processing aspect -- they can collect on the audio encoding patent when it issues and then collect for an extended period on the video processing part when that issues. In fact many companies have more than one patent on HDTV. Look at how many companies had patents on mp3 technology
It is absurd that the USPTO has a massive backlog on patent issuance -- by law, it is expected that a patent term is 20 years from the filing date -- however there is an exception to that rule if the patent is not issued within 2 years -- if the patent is not issued within 2 years (due to a USPTO delay) the clock on that 20 years is paused until the patent issues. There are still hundreds of thousands of patents filed on things like HDTV which havent yet issued. It means that HDTV technology will be patent encumbered for the long term future. Nobody has the incentive to fix it. If you wanted to make an open hardware HDTV, you can't do it royalty free because a lot of the HDTV standards essential technologies are still patented and will STAY patented virtually forever thanks to the USPTO patent backlog. Why would any tech companies object to that? They make money off the patents they filed that got issued PLUS the ones that were filed but the USPTO hasnt taken action on them. Think about it this way if Sony filed two patents on HD technology, they get one of them issued fairly quickly within 2 years .. and then by luck or bribery the USPTO action on the second patent is delayed 19 years just as the first patent is expiring .. then because it's the USPTO's fault that the second patent didnt issue .. they get to claim 17 years of additional monopoly on the HD technology. I am not against patents, I am against infinitely long patents .. which are unconstitutional .. yet in practice the USPTO is enabling it. Let's not forget that the constitution only authorizes patent rights if and only if they enable the advancement of the useful arts and sciences (and those too for limited times).
The keys are practically next to each other.
This means if your laptop has nmap, burp suite, metasploit, or Ida pro etc. and you visit China with it .. you could be arrested when you come back. How freaking stupid is that? Also, a lot of times it's hard to draw the line between debugging tools and penetration testing tools.
I took a few Khan academy courses on MBA stuff, so I can translate it from corporate speak to straight talk:
1. Long range outlook: batteries or fuel cells?
Answer: I have no freaking clue bro.
2. Charging at gas stations?
Answer: Not gonna happen.
3. The volt has poor aesthetics, will the GM skateboard's swappable chassis concept become real?
Answer: Some people are buying ugly, so we'll continue to sell it. I am going to ignore your question about the GM skateboard and swappable chassis (which are never gonna happen btw) and talk about fuel cells instead. Fuel cells -- I know nothing about them.
4. Will I be able to buy a Spark EV in Georgia?
Answer: No, we don't sell to hicks. We would only consider selling you guys a car that isn't ever going to be made.
5. What is Chevy's plans to extend the Voltec system into other models such as the Trax and/or the Equinox?
Answer: Never gonna happen. We still want your money though, so why don't you buy one of our cars that use the same floor mat as a Volt?
6. Why don't you guys advertise the Volt?
Answer: Have you seen the documentary "Who killed the electric car?" starring the EV1? Well, we are setting up the Volt to star in the sequel.
7. Will you guys make hybrid pickups again?
Answer: No, we rather sell you the gas guzzlers and get the oil company kickbacks.
8. Are you guys benefitting from Tesla's open patents?
Answer: Yes, but we'll never admit it. Btw, did you know that GM's vagina is much deeper than anyone else's?
9. Would you guys ever use ultracapacitors?
Answer: What's an ultracapacitor? I am going to have to google that one.
10. Would you make the charging go faster?
Answer: No. Deal with it.
11. How is the upcoming Chevy Bolt going to get 200 miles per charge with a base price of $30,000?
Answer: It is impossible.
There are no TVs with usable voice control. I rather use a TV without a remote with a knob on the TV that makes me get up from the couch to change volume or channels than the voice control in Samsung Smart TV.
I lol at everyone thinking there is no way to break into and dominate the supposedly saturated TV market. First off, as long as there are people who have money, even the market for pet rocks is not saturated as long as you can put some lipstick on it. Is the market for luxury anything saturated? As long as the human need to show off oneself as superior exists the market will never die. You diamond dust the carbon fiber bezel and make it expensive enough someone will want it. Second, current TV interfaces are horrible and unusable. Using a TV should be as easy as walking into your living room and saying "TV, ESPN" then when you see that ESPN is boring you should be able to say "TV, recommend some popular action movies I haven't seen" .. And then a list of choices should pop up. We ALREADY have the voice recognition ability to make this possible. Google Now and Siri work fine with a TV full volume in the background so you can't tell me a TV can't cancel out its own sound. Why is it that Samsung smart tv voice recognition is worse than on a Galaxy phone?? And Samsung smart tv has no natural language query interpretation ability. It can't even identify its own channels!!
So basically it's very simple for a company like Apple to make a compelling TV product if they invest resources in it. And that's even assuming they don't buy or create their own Netflix and offer on demand streaming content for subscription. Mind you they have the $$ capital and heavyweight to offer much better content than Netflix. So yeah a compelling and differentiated TV is certainly possible and plausible in spite of the naysayers. Samsung and Google would never be able to deliver on it, only Apple can.
That's just false. The screen power drain is mostly due to the backlight which is no more brighter than any other screen so that won't draw more power. As for the GPU it doesn't have to render the image fully in situations where 1080p suffices .. it can just render at 1080p and then upscale the image to 4k.
Actually the Oculus requires nothing less than a 10K display (5K per eye according to my calculation) .. so they need to get to around 2000 ppi ... Honestly I am not sure if that is even possible within 20 years.
How many calls do you fools get that you need to screen calls? "Ring Ring .. let me check my douchewatch .. hmm .. not answering!"
Answer all your calls. I can see the need for a smartwatch to answer texts though. When someone texts you, respond on your douchewatch with "call me" and then don't answer the phone.
What about the millions of people who want other people to think they are douches? They need a douchewatch.
I'm buying the cheaper one so I can gold plate it myself to upgrade it to $17K version so I can show it off to people who would then believe me to be a vastly superior human being than them. That can be my legacy. Here lies a dude who owned a $17K watch. He is so F'ing cool.
How could they release this thing without a technology like Witricity or whole room charging?? It should be able to charge in a room or when you are sitting on the couch and also in the car without having to deliberately place your hand/watch in a specific location.
I mean we have the technology for whole room charging, so why not use it? They have like 100 billion dollars in cash couldn't they have spent a few million and figured out how to put Witricity into the watch? Now even Samsung won't do it until they have Apple does it .. so we have to wait for Apple to get this idea.
Well I know they are reading slashdot cause thats where they got the downfacing IR sensor and vibration messaging idea .. http://ask.slashdot.org/commen... so maybe they will grab this one too.
When choosing a servant, you want to interview them to make sure they aren't anywhere as smart as you. At least now in general, maybe in a specific task .. but in general you don't want them overall smarter than you.
In the future, instead of having a job you will own shares in a factory that has robots. In essence you will own a robot .. and the output in terms of productivity will be your salary (or shareholder dividends). For those who do not invest wisely, the government will provide them some minimal amount via taxation of the shareholders. Or maybe the company directly. I don't know. Vote for for what you like.
Since robots will be doing all the work, the cost of stuff will be dirt cheap. Food will be synthetically produced in giant vats, powered by fusion energy.
This may not work out in our favor over the long term. How soon before they start overtly regulating content?
This Net Neutrality "gift" may turn out to be a trojan horse. There must have be some other way to ensure the net stays neutral without classifying it as a utility subject to government meddling.
I must be getting old when 6-digit UIDs are long time slashdotters. I for one welcome our newbie overlords.
Yeh I love how people think wisdom and advice is important, when actually it's actions. Words are a dime a dozen. Study hard and avoid crazy partners that keep you down? Uh, yeah I knew that. Care about your fellow human and don't rob & steal? Ya think? I think you are right, just record some daily activities showing what you were like -- stuff showing you doing things that a good person would be doing (charity, reading a book etc.). Most lectured advice stuff might end up being fake anyway, and downright inapplicable or wrong. Try to put them on a path where they have financial security and good mentors. Finally, the solution should be based on the individual, of which there is no average. So what works for one may not work for the other, you can only hope to find the path of highest success probability.
Whose fault is that? Don't get mad that someone is wants the job.
Why yes duh of course I am super interested in making my fellow Americans suffer economic hardship, what else could my intent be. WTF? Just because I have a better understanding of economics than you doesn't mean I somehow care less about people.
Second, you are saying society gets to pick who gets a job and who doesn't? When you force a minimum wage for jobs it means the jobs that are open for people willing to work for less are closed while the more experienced elites still get to work for their 200k salary. I understand the intent behind it, but wages shouldn't be decided based on what you think a person "deserves" as their salary. If that were the case we should be forcing our corporations into paying our veterans ten times what a top engineer makes.
The best thing for an economy is a reduced production cost. This means that low wages can buy more, and also that shares in a company would pay high dividends. I mean, if you owned a robot that works in a factory (equivalent of owning shares in that factory) wouldn't you be better off if that factory made more money? Notice how with automation the economy has not collapsed? We have more automation than ever before in history yet we also have a large amount of jobs and can afford a lot of things. Even the government gets its cut from it and distributes it as welfare. In the 1950s many people could not afford a tv and a fridge. Yet today nearly everyone can, plus a smartphone and a computer. Low production costs = increased supply and increased affordability.
At which point would you agree there is a shortage? When the salary is $200k but the price of housing has doubled because everyone is making 200k and wants to live in the same location?
Way to spread false information. I suppose it's good in a way. Last thing we need is people who can't be bothered to verify stuff somebody tells them moving to the bay area.
Fact is, $60K is the $30K equivalent in the bay area with 45 minute rush hour commute (Caltrain or drive) to Mountain View (without roommates to share rent). Allocate $1.2K for rent in San Jose and 30% extra for all other expenses. Yeah its tough to live on that but I really want to see what you can do with $30K in Atlanta. With 120K you can be comfortable in the bay area.
Obviously you can keep increasing the salary until you'll find an American able or willing to do the job. But then that means your risk capital expenditure increases. Just about everything you put money into comes with a risk. If you own a business, there is only so much money you are able to gamble. The more risky something is, the reward potential must go up exponentially for someone to invest in it. What am I getting at, if the cost of entry to making a startup or company is high, less such companies will exist -- why would VC's dump money into it. Overall result ---> less products and innovation in the market, higher prices to consumer. So if the prices of everything goes up, how does it help the engineers with their higher salaries?
Fact is that the more engineers in the world we have, the cheaper goods we will get. I mean, what if Apple was the only company able to afford engineers? What if Samsung and non-American companies were barred from selling cell phones? Smartphones would cost an insane amount -- few people would be able to afford it.
If less people have smartphones other areas of the economy would be affected too.
And btw, why aren't there americans willing to work for $60K? I mean really, if you have an CS degree + student loan why would you choose to work at McDonald's for $20K? Now I agree that $20K is not a living wage, but $60K .. come on .. even with student loan burden of $800 a month, it's still better than $20K at McDonalds or living on welfare. The monthly payment on a $30,000 student loan (which is slightly above the average 2014 graduate's debt) is approximately $300 (assuming 6.8% interest and a 10-year repayment plan).
So basically I am supposed to believe that computer science graduates rather sit at home or work an unlivable wage at McDonalds than take a job for $60K, which more than easily covers their student debt cost?
Now for engineers, $80K is an unlivable wage? What's the livable wage for a particular degree, that you would agree there is a shortage at?
I guarantee that whatever you force wages to rise to, it will not be enough --- because the price of everything will rise correspondingly plus extra.
What's the biggest useful future challenge in mathematics for the next 25 years?