Alex63

I think you are mistaken. Raising the minimum wage is exactly like inflation. Raising the minimum wage temporarily gives an advantage to those with the least power to set a price for their labor. This will increase demand for goods and services. In response to that increased demand, providers of goods and services will raise prices. Those with more bargaining power will set a higher price for their labor, and unskilled workers (i.e., those earning minimum wage) will find themselves back where they were.

Maybe a little more clarification? When you say that nobody on the team can understand it, are you primarily talking about code complexity, code style, or language?

Many years ago, I became the designated maintainer for a legacy inventory system that was used for internal audit purposes. The system ran on a PDP-11/70, and was written in a combination of Basic-Plus (this was a long time ago) and COBOL. I only had a passing familiarity with either of those languages. I find the challenges of learning a code base usually boil down to a few recurring problem areas:

* Problem domain knowledge: The system was used to track leased telecommunication facilities, and had a lot of obscure business logic built into it. At least half the challenge was reverse engineering business logic from the code.

* Coding style: I always find it challenging to get comfortable with another developer's style. Mismatches in assumptions/preferred approaches can make it really hard to get comfortable with someone else's code. This particular system had some truly weird programming choices, including a "screen driver" (similar to curses) written in COBOL.

* Code complexity: I was pretty lucky that the code was not very complicated. With all the other challenges, if the code had been complex it would have probably been an impossible challenge.

* Language knowledge: the original developers had used some features of Basic-Plus and COBOL that were a little obscure, which made understanding the code base that much harder.

As far as I recall, SpongeBob was the only animated show that every member of our family liked. RIP.

I have worked with at least one transgender individual who I must assume wished to be accepted as a woman, given how that person dressed, spoke, and the name that that person used. I was happy to use the pronouns she/her as a courtesy, and agree that it did me no harm. But I can also understand that some people feel that it would be harmful if the state or another authority forced them to say something they deemed to be untrue.

I agree, and I would not want to see regulation or laws that prevent labour access to other opportunities. But asking people to work overtime for specific reasons/period doesn't prevent them from looking for other opportunities. That seems like a straw man.

As a side note, I'm curious about what down votes mean in this context. Are people registering their feelings about the free market? Are they suggesting that the content of my comment is in some way inappropriate or offensive? Or that I have not followed the rules of HN?

Personally, I'm not too concerned about HN karma, but I'm curious about the incentive system that it creates. Does the karma system simply promote adherence to the majority/popular view, or does it improve the quality of discussion?

Hmmm. Lots to unpack here, but I'll focus on your comments about globalization. I suppose you could implement regulations to prohibit importation of goods/services from jurisdictions that don't have acceptable standards in place. By doing so, you would probably destroy the economies of India and China. Without a cost advantage (due to lower labour and environmental standards), the shipping costs would pretty much ensure that you would always buy from local suppliers. Wouldn't the destruction of emerging economies result in more victims than would poor labour/environmental standards?

I sincerely don't want to oversimplify your argument, but it seems like the logical end-point would be a global socialist/communist society. Is that your desired/intended outcome?

Both your proposals seem likely to result in increased automation, thereby reducing overall employment. To be clear, I'm not saying it's a good thing that some people feel they have to work a 12+ hour day, but isn't it better that they have that choice than that their job is automated out of existence?

Also, if you mandate higher costs for suppliers (through limited hours and minimum wages) then you will create incentives for people to buy from suppliers that aren't subject to those regulations (i.e., foreign suppliers). You can try to prevent that through tariffs and duties, but they have their own problems.

Just to be clear, in this case "free market rules" include:

1. Most customers choose to buy from the seller with the lowest price.

2. Employees are free to leave their employment if they find the conditions intolerable.

Which of these rules do you want to change?

Gartner's publicity pieces, including hype cycles and magic quadrants, serve the purpose of giving non-technical executives and decision makers a high-level understanding of the risk of choosing a particular technology or vendor. For these users, all that matters is getting a snapshot of the present moment.

Gartner also sells research and analysis reports, and subscriptions for these services. These materials, IME, are of higher quality and can be a good introduction or exploration of a particular issue or technology. But they are definitely more oriented toward the senior leader than to the person in the trenches.

I'd be interested to hear how homelessness can be meaningfully addressed in a humane way by the federal government (especially if it is constitutional).

I don't get this part:

"The worry is that this might not be the case for long. Though the housing market has finally recently started to cool, experts tend to agree it’ll tick back upward before long—especially given the reticence of the powers that be to impose the slightest limit on the breakneck pace of growth."

Which are "the powers that be"? City/county/state government? Or large tech employers? Local municipalities do seem to be limiting growth through zoning (a contributor to the high cost of living). If this is to suggest that local employers should somehow limit their own growth, I guess you could point to Amazon choosing to open new headquarters in VA and NY.

I guess I just don't get this paragraph.

What an interesting question. Kudos to you for your self-awareness and being willing to tackle this. There's a lot of good advice in the comments (and a couple of clunkers).

I found it interesting that you phrased your interest as "learn workplace politics." From what you describe, it sounds more like this is more an issue of communications and process. I work in the consulting industry, where communications and process are often both critical to successful outcomes.

When I was starting out, I found Gerry Weinberg's books Becoming a Technical Leader, Secrets of Consulting, and The Psychology of Computer Programming to be very interesting and helpful. In fact, in one of them (I think it's Becoming a Technical Leader), Weinberg talks about how an "introvert" may actually turn out to be the more effective technical leader because they focus on solving problems instead of talking about them.

Weinberg also talks about not saying "no" (suggested in another comment), and this is something I've found to be very valuable in consulting. Rather than just telling someone their request can't be done, or accepting it mutely, tell them how much it will cost to do it (Weinberg explains this as the "Orange Juice Test" in Secrets of Consulting).

I do agree with the comment about using wireframes to confirm your understanding/spec with your users. There are other techniques that can also work (e.g., creating user stories with your stakeholders), but the common element is that you must communicate clearly, concisely, and cooperatively with others.

Sorry this comment is a little scattershot, but best of luck with your efforts.

Maybe I'm missing something, but if you only talk to "A*" teams, aren't you running the risk of confirmation bias? Maybe there are groups/companies out there doing the things you recommend, but not succeeding. Did you look for any of those?

Fair criticism, but I think the author of the article does address your point:

"A Francophone biker in Lennoxville, a Cree lawyer in Manitoba, a Punjabi-speaking business owner on the Lower Mainland, and an anglophone trader on Bay Street may not share any basic ground of identity or culture, but all are, to varying degrees, united by practical bonds of jurisprudence, government, and economics. The novelist’s job is to shed light on the brute fact of those binding forces, and that usually means paying close attention to the institutions and individuals responsible for the country’s current state of affairs."

Personally, I would vote for something by Farley Mowat. ;)

I looked at the résumé linked from your profile, too. I agree with ac29, plus the following suggestions:

* Remove all the logos/links. They're not helping the first impression, and they'll almost certainly confuse the systems that are used to scan/store your résumé.

* Take out the reference to military technology in your objective. If you get an interview you can ask them if they do military work and explain your reservations.

* Simplify your work history. Try to make it as sequential as possible, with as few gaps as possible. If you have a lot of work experience that is not directly relevant to the position you are seeking, consider changing the format and just list "Relevant Experience".

* Make your education section simpler. Just list your most advanced degree, or include your Bachelor's degree if it is in another field. Don't show your GPA, but include any academic honours you received while obtaining your degree.

* Remove all the icons on the second page, including the flags.

* Condense your charity work/hobbies/extra-curricular activities to a short list. Do list any directorships you held/hold. Don't list specific job titles unless they directly relate to the position you seek.

* You might consider just saying "References available upon request."

Your résumé comes across as kind of "all purpose". Maybe that's just because it's the one you include in your profile. If you aren't creating a focused résumé for each opportunity, you might want to consider doing that.

Yes, and no. The value we place on our own labour is subjective, and the value that a buyer places on our labour is also subjective. You may value your labor at $100/hour, and if no one agrees to pay that price that doesn't mean you are wrong, it just means that there's no market for your labour at that amount.

At the same time, we can say that there is an objective value for labour of a certain type (I'm thinking of commodified labour), which is the going market rate. Just as there is, at any given point in time, an objective value for a share of Apple Computer.

Some interesting things in this article. Given what appear to be changing attitudes to men ("long America’s economically privileged gender"), is this situation really surprising? When one considers diversity and inclusion goals, hiring more men seems like a lower priority.

I was also amused by the comment, “I’m very quick to get frustrated when people refuse to pay me what I’m worth.” This seems like a conversation I have at least once a quarter with someone. You're worth what the market is willing to offer you, not what you think you are worth.

1. I think the title may be a little misleading. Only 3% declare bankruptcy, though higher numbers deplete all their savings. It's hard to find a good estimate of per capita "savings". A search indicates that the median savings account balance in the US is about $5,000. The median 401(K) appears to be about $36,000. Based on this, I'll assume that means the typical out-of-pocket costs of cancer treatment are somewhere around $30,000. That seems in line with what the out-of-pocket costs for 5 years of treatment might be under my current coverage.

2. The problem with any discussion of healthcare issues is that we are naturally swayed by our empathy for those who are suffering. Almost all of us would choose to pay whatever was needed to save a loved one, and would grant that ability to others if we could. It seems simple enough to say "we should spend less money on the military/international aid/tax breaks for corporations/the NEA/etc." if it means that we can provide affordable treatment to those who are suffering. Unfortunately, until the singularity arrives there is probably always going to be a cost that is too high, and hard decisions must be made. As a Canadian, I know that one of the downsides of universal healthcare is that some treatments must be rationed and bureaucrats will make decisions affecting the life of my loved ones. Now that I live in the US I can avail myself of diagnostics and treatments that may simply not be available in Canada. The cost may beggar me and the likelihood of a positive outcome may be remote, but it is my choice, and a choice that may not be available under other systems.

3. No, I have not read all of the comments. As with many HN comment pages, the marginal value of descendant comments seems to drop off quickly.

The article makes no claims, scientific of otherwise, with respect to a "diabetes epidemic" and the possible role of plastics.

"A separate study by the University of York in Britain that sought to assess the risks of microplastics to the environment, published Wednesday, concluded not enough is known to determine if microplastics cause harm."

Both comments are expressing opinions that have nothing to do with the content of the article.

I have been a big fan of GW since the 80s. I don't have my copy of _Secrets of Consulting_ handy, so I can't check whether he actually claimed that story as a personal experience. I do know that I've seen a British comic postcard from around 1950 that uses a similar joke:

Vicar to parishioner: "My word, Mrs. Jones, do you always have twins?" Mrs. Jones: "Oh, no sir, most of the time we don't have anything."

I wonder if the author might have thought it was an odd name because "wc" is also used in some English-speaking countries as an abbreviation for "water closet", a synonym for a flush toilet.

How is paying the head tax going to help Seattle-area employees? It's unlikely that many Seattle-area employees are going to qualify for the 1800 "affordable housing units." The underlying issue appears to be Seattle's restrictions on development. The crazy cost of housing in the area is the result of restrictions on supply (and the high incomes of many tech employees). I'm also unpersuaded that this tax will have any significant impact on homelessness in the area unless restrictions on development are eased. It's going to be interesting in the long term to see how the socialist city council reconciles their political philosophy with their constituents' demands for tight controls on development. We only have to look at San Francisco to see the likely outcome.

The Traveling Wilburys reunion is going to be pretty sparsely attended. I hope Bob Dylan and Jeff Lynne are looking after themselves.

Monsanto's punishment was an $80M settlement. The $22M was just the reward to the whistleblower.

I don't know if the community will consider this example to be microservices as currently defined, but many years ago I wrote client-server systems using a PC-based fat client application, and transactions running on a CICS server. I think this was pretty similar to what people currently think of as a microservices architecture, although we didn't have to worry about running/monitoring multiple servers (all the transactions/services ran on a single mainframe server), and the transaction monitor managed things like start-up and shutdown pretty simply. This approach worked really well for us, and we built several robust, scalable applications using this approach. To be clear, we numbered our users in hundreds, not thousands or millions. I can well understand how scaling this approach across many servers could be very challenging.

This study (studies?) has been in the news a lot recently. It seems clear that how you respond to it depends on what role you believe the state should play in the redistribution of wealth. As a disclaimer, I'll say right now that I do not believe the state should play any role in redistributing wealth.

My suspicion is that this study has been presented and promoted as justification for increased taxation of the wealthy. Of course, increased taxation of upper quintiles won't actually change the distribution of wealth unless the government directly transfers the proceeds of increased taxation to those in the lower quintiles. But that won't happen. Instead, the increased taxes would be used to give those in the lower quintiles services that the government has decided they need (or to further subsidize corn farming or other friends of the party in power).

As a thought experiment, I wonder how many people would support a proposal to take the aggregate payroll of their local NFL/NBA/MLB/NHL franchise, and distribute it evenly among all of the players on the team roster. Not many, I suspect.

Some interesting ideas here, and in the parent comment. I'll admit to being fairly naive when it comes to economics. With that in mind, when I started this thread I was thinking about whether it mattered that the discretionary income of those in the upper quintiles was growing faster than those in the lower quintiles, as long as all quintiles have discretionary income. I agree that being able to buy a TV is not the same thing as being able to house/clothe/feed your family. In light of this discussion, I'm now thinking it would be helpful if the charts showed how poverty (which I will define to mean unable to house/clothe/feed your family) has increased/decreased during the same period.

Shouldn't some of these charts show overall growth of the economy, too? One of the charts addresses this a little (14x growth vs. 4x growth). Shouldn't inflation be factored in, too? It seems like they are trying to make the divergence in incomes appear to be a win for the upper quintiles, at the expense of the lower, when in fact all quintiles have improved in real terms.