×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates

SillyHamster Re:This is not the problem (658 comments)

The set-up is legitimate: when I worked at Wendy's, it was clear we wouldn't sell more burgers by staffing more people; but we were profiting, and we had exactly enough people that we could make the burgers and fries as fast as they were ordered at any given time, and we would still be profiting with a few pennies increase in wages, and still be cheaper than buying and maintaining machines at the time. This is a thing that is actually real.

You wish to argue that what you thought while working at a single Wendy's restaurant is indicative of how all businesses as a whole will react to a minimum wage?

Did you manage payroll? Were you and ALL of your coworkers paid exactly minimum wage?

It's possible with the amount of money we currently spend on direct welfare. Our current welfare system discourages work. By creating a more efficient welfare system using the same financial resources, we increase value by moving power into the hands of workers and allowing for a free-market solution to wages and employment.

The money that currently pays for welfare is not a free pot of money. It comes from taxation on the productive.

There may be a welfare system that is better and more sustainable than what we have now, but that is not particularly relevant to my criticisms of minimum wage.

The current solution is "if you don't work, you will die." ... because getting a job when you're on our current welfare system tends to leave you with less money.

This is the 3rd time you've contradicted reality. People aren't starving to death. They're not getting worked to death. A solution to prevent those two outcomes misses the mark because those are not the primary problems of our current system.

yesterday
top

Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates

SillyHamster Re:This is not the problem (658 comments)

Let's say, as well, that demand sharply drops off after the production capacity possible with 100 guys:

Why should we make that assumption? We're not looking at a specific business, we're looking at the demand as a whole.

Demand inelasticity could make it so that a small enough minimum wage does what you hope it will do - but that also means it's small enough to not be disruptive and thus provides little benefit.

Additionally, even for small changes, businesses will adjust their operations over time to make the most profitable use out of the resources they have available. If labor is cheap, they will use business strategies that take advantage of that abundant resource (and drive up demand) If labor is more expensive, they will find alternatives. In short, the general demand/supply curve still applies - which tells us that minimum wage artificially reduces labor supply by telling some people they're not allowed to work at the wages they can ask for.

People need some 2000kcal of food intake per day to live. Paying people enough for 1500kcal of food intake per day will lead to malnutrition over time, as they can't get enough food. If they aren't paid at all, they simply starve immediately.

People aren't starving in 1st world countries. Food is cheap. Yet again, your economic model doesn't reflect reality. Thus, it is useless for theorizing improvements to the systems in reality.

Providing everyone for the means to live will not destroy the desire to work.

Preventing people who would like to work, from working, does not "provide the means to live".

Giving people a "living wage" regardless of the value of the work they actually do drains their work of any meaning and destroys the desire to work - if they get the same results regardless of effort - why bother?

Because of this, minimum wage is no longer an imperative: we have ensured a minimum standard of living, and placed negotiation power in the hands of the laborer.

Who is this "we" that are "ensuring" things? Where are the resources coming from? You cannot cheat market value. Trying to manipulate market value with top-down governmental policies will backfire when people take advantage of any perverse incentives created.

2 days ago
top

Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates

SillyHamster Re:This is not the problem (658 comments)

The labor supply isn't restricted. We have a huge labor supply; it's the money or job supply that's restricted.

Minimum wage works by restricting supply, increasing the price paid for the exact same labor.

Let's say businesses are willing to hire 100 guys at $5/hour, but min wage is $8/hour, so they only hire 60 guys instead.

40 guys end up with no work instead of having a $5/hour job. Even though they were willing to work at $5/hour, they are not allowed to do so.

100 guys willing to work, but only 60 are allowed to do so due to minimum wage. That is a restricted supply of labor.

If the labor will KILL you, but food and healthcare will sustain you, the proper payment is the cost of food and healthcare that will sustain you, PLUS compensation for your time; however, without an income, starvation will kill you faster, so you will work a job where you pay $10 worth of your health and receive $5 in compensation, thus dying more slowly. This is, conceptually, what happens in our current system.

People are not dying from burger flipping or running the cashiers. Your concept doesn't match reality - and thus should not be used to govern reality.

This is why I prefer to ensure survival outright, to disconnect life from work.

While this may sound good, implementations harm those who work and reward those who do not work. Since work is essential to the improvement and maintenance of human civilization, this effectively undermines and destroys civilization.

It's very easy to vote for bread and circuses - but bread is created by work - destroy the work and there will be no bread.

2 days ago
top

Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates

SillyHamster Re:This is not the problem (658 comments)

Removing minimum wage right now would leave the poorest under the threat of a worse situation than a horribly low salary. The salaries they would be offered would be below tolerable, but better than nothing.

All jobs exist because the worker provides more value than what he is paid.

The only way for removing minimum wage to reduce what a worker is paid is if the labor supply is being restricted by minimum wage, thus increasing the price given the supply/demand.

The only way for minimum wage to have an effect is if people are DENIED paying work that they are able and willing to do, in order to make someone else earn a little more money. You think denying people a paying job ($0/hour) is better than them having a paying job?

Bear in mind that in the real world, no one is working AT minimum wage, forever. McDs pays far more than $2/hour for its fryers - and a fryer probably has no desire to make that his life-career - nor should he. Some new inexperienced high schooler will be here in 2 years who can take over the job, while he moves on to something better. (Say management!)

3 days ago
top

Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates

SillyHamster Re:This is not the problem (658 comments)

Actually, if you can get everyone a barely survivable standard of living by default, you can repeal minimum wage.

You can repeal it right now, for a net improvement to society. Minimum wage destroys training jobs - which is a way for people to get job experience and qualify for better jobs, without schooling (which costs money!).

Getting paid to get experience is a good thing. Unpaid internships exist for a reason; a "below minimum wage" job is an upgrade from that.

3 days ago
top

Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates

SillyHamster Re:This is not the problem (658 comments)

They can be wealthy without having to spend a dime on other people, just on technology.

There are so many things wrong in this single sentence.

You don't become wealthy by spending money. You get rich by people giving you money - either by adding value, or by stealing it.

Technology comes from people - buying technology involves giving money to other people for goods and services rendered.

If you can't get the basic details right, why should anyone care about your economic analysis and predictions?

3 days ago
top

Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates

SillyHamster Re:This is not the problem (658 comments)

If the robotic dystopia happens, then you can claim Marx was onto something.

Until it does, he's still the failed economic theorist he's always been.

3 days ago
top

Virtual Reality Experiment Wants To Put White People In Black Bodies

SillyHamster Re:Stop it with this crap. (447 comments)

Are you putting this forth as evidence you're an expert on racism? Really?

Reading is hard. You couldn't even finish the sentence and address the POINT of the sentence.

But you do OUTRAGE really well, so maybe you're a racism expert.

4 days ago
top

James Watson's Nobel Prize Medal Will Be Returned To Him

SillyHamster Re:One good turn... (235 comments)

You're playing with words. "Discrimination" can mean either the simple act of differentiating between two things, or in a phrase like "racial discrimination" acting in a negative manner towards a group.

Do I need to point out that "racial discrimination" is a subset of "discrimination"? "White truck" vs "truck".

Discrimination is the judgement, it doesn't have to be linked to action. People get called racist for racist opinions/statements, not necessarily for racist actions.

"whites are smarter"/"blacks are smarter" is the SAME FORM as the previous innocuous statements. Still not racist?

How about "Whites are dumber"/"blacks are dumber"? Simple inversion of the smarter claim - still not racist?

You may consider this playing with words, but either words communicate a concrete idea, or we're just babbling at each other.

about two weeks ago
top

James Watson's Nobel Prize Medal Will Be Returned To Him

SillyHamster Re:One good turn... (235 comments)

You cannot debunk what he said by just calling it racist. Is it true what he said? If it is, its not racist - a fact is not racist.

I agree you cannot disprove the truth of a claim by calling it racist, but for that same reason, being factual does not preclude racism.

Because if all factual claims are not racist, a racist statement must not be true - but if racism does not change the truth content of a claim, a racist claim could still be factual.

Going to the definition of the word, racist means discrimination on the basis of race. A simple true statement like, "whites are pale-skinned and blacks are dark-skinned" is discriminating on the basis of skin color (race).

about two weeks ago
top

The Failed Economics of Our Software Commons

SillyHamster Re:Marketshare (205 comments)

Is it your argument that it's immoral to do what's necessary to secure peaceful societies with opportunities for economic development?

I'm saying printing money is stealing. What point of mine do you think you're responding to?

printing money != taxation

about two weeks ago
top

The Failed Economics of Our Software Commons

SillyHamster Re:Marketshare (205 comments)

Stealing is the unlawful taking of someone else's property. There, I even highlighted the important word for you. There are many good reasons for lawfully taking someone's property or rather: Small parts of it. Unless you're a hard-core anarchist, you have to solve the problem of how to keep the government (small or big) working at all, and sooner or later your solution will be taxes, even if you call it by a different name.

Oh, so it's not stealing as long as you pass a law to do so.

The legal does not override the moral. Even if a government made it legal to kill people of the wrong skin color for any reason, it would still be morally wrong to do so, and I am well within reason to call it murder, legal or not.

The major disagreement between political factions is how much to tax, who to tax and what to spend the money on, but never about taxation itself.

I was addressing a point that thought it'd be fine for the Federal government to print money, as long as it gave it to the "right" people.

Printing money is a way to secretly steal from the savers of society. It is indiscriminate and ultimately will most benefit the people in power and the people with connections, no matter who else nominally benefits. (ex: The People)

about two weeks ago
top

UK Announces 'Google Tax'

SillyHamster Re:Great (602 comments)

It does lead to "might makes it possible to do what the hell you want" but that doesn't mean that that is right. 10 minutes of medieval history tells you that that is exactly what happened in the past.

As your example illustrates, we know it is not right, and we have a common and instinctive urge to call it wrong. Thus, there is a human right that transcends government. It's wrong not just because a particular government says it's wrong, but because of something that is innate to humanity. (and I believe, the universe we exist in)

However that is academic. What is the practical difference between protecting a right for someone and being the source of that right? If you protect someones right you can simply remove that protection. If the other isn't capable of protecting that right, what use is that right? If someone is raping you what protection is "It's my right not to be raped"?

No, it is not academic.

If you don't have the right to resist, why resist? If you don't have the right to free speech, why should you risk anything to speak against the majority/popular view?

Paying a heavy cost to assert a right is possible only when there is a concept of right and wrong that is more valuable than even one's own life.

Take away that ideal, and we are just bags of meat, and we are ultimately just slaves to the strongest bully in the neighborhood.

Another uncomfortable truth is that there isn't some magical protection on rights.

You speak of truth as if it were desirable, while attacking the concept of rights. ("it's not a right if someone isn't strong enough to protect it")

"It's not true if it's uncomfortable" - how much would you disagree with that?

Because that is wrong in the same way as "it's not a right if it's not protected by a government".

Most likely there is no god, and if there is He isn't doing much on this front. We have to protect the weak ourselves. For that we use governments.

Wrong. There is a God, and our instinctive desire for Justice, Right, and Protection of the Weak are strong evidence of His fingerprints.

We do need to protect the weak, and we are a part of governments - but governments are not the highest human authority - so we have the right to judge governments and force them to do what is right.

about two weeks ago
top

The Failed Economics of Our Software Commons

SillyHamster Re:Marketshare (205 comments)

How about the Fed give money to individuals instead of corporations?

"Steal from the right people" is still worse than "don't steal".

about two weeks ago
top

UK Announces 'Google Tax'

SillyHamster Re:Great (602 comments)

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that might makes things right.

I am not putting words in your mouth. I am pointing out where the logic of your position leads to.

If that makes you uncomfortable (it should!), you ought to re-examine your logical position.

Please understand that natural rights are pointless if nobody protects them. Then we can talk.

That's nonsense. A right is not some object you have, it's something you are justified to do. At the very bare minimum, you are protecting your right - and if you aren't willing to protect it, you can't complain that someone else isn't protecting it.

The government can help you protect your rights, but it cannot be the source of the justification without it also having complete authority to do whatever it wants.

So let's clear this up if you wish to continue talking: Is the government the source of rights? Yes/No.

about two weeks ago
top

New Virus Means Deadlier Flu Season Is Possible

SillyHamster Re:Meh. (163 comments)

By and large illegal immigrants are healthier than the average American and use fewer "health care resources", something which has been studied for decades now with lots of publications, in the hope that there's something there the rest of us can do.

You wouldn't know their health without doing a physical checkup, which isn't done on illegal immigrants bypassing official channels.

So what are these studies based off of?

about two weeks ago
top

New Virus Means Deadlier Flu Season Is Possible

SillyHamster Re:Meh. (163 comments)

There is herd immunity, but all that happens is a different strain of flu ends up spreading.

So every year, a number of people get sick with the flu ... and that demonstrates flu herd immunity exists and works.

I'm afraid I do not find your concept of herd immunity to be useful.

about two weeks ago
top

UK Announces 'Google Tax'

SillyHamster Re:Great (602 comments)

If you get down to it there is no such thing as natural right. You may have that right but unless you are physically stronger then the one who tries to violate that right you are going to need someone to protect that right. The government provides that someone, mostly by punishing those who violate that right.

Natural rights do not exist only in a world without objective morality.

The jury is out on that question, considering the inability to prove God does not exist, and the natural tendency of mankind to seek justice and the "right" of things.

So for each of the so called natural rights the government grants you protection from violation. I see no difference from the government granting that right in the first place.

So you have no problems if a government rescinds those rights and decides a portion of its population needs to be plundered and converted into fertilizer? As in mass killing/genocide, in case that's too subtle.

Because in a world without "natural rights" - that's not wrong. If you were principled about there being no such thing as "natural rights", you'd respect the Hitlers and Stalins and Maos of the world for doing whatever they wanted to do. Cause their might makes it right.

As for the government taking that protection away: they won't. Not without due process.

Let's perform a thought experiment. Let's say they do, without due process. Is that a good/right thing?

Because it has happened in the past, and it might happen in the future. You can't say it will not happen or did not happen - only that it should not - but why should it not happen if it's not wrong?

about two weeks ago
top

New Virus Means Deadlier Flu Season Is Possible

SillyHamster Re:Meh. (163 comments)

Never heard of herd immunity? Your minor inconvenience could save an immunocompromised person.

1. Flu shots aren't given to everyone. Heck, they run shortages frequently - and that's with voluntary shots. There is no herd immunity to maintain. There has never been a flu herd immunity.

2. With unrestricted illegal immigration, it doesn't matter how immune the rest of the herd is, because we're importing new disease vectors/reservoirs without even a quick physical checkup.

about two weeks ago
top

UK Announces 'Google Tax'

SillyHamster Re:Great (602 comments)

In many states of the US that is true: after due process you can be sentenced to death.

You do not remotely comprehend the point, then. If the right to not be murdered/raped/robbed (right to life) is granted by government, the government doesn't need due process - the government can do no wrong.

A distinction needs to be drawn between protection of a right (using police/legal system/military) and the granting of a right.

We pay taxes to sustain a government that protects our natural rights. We do not pay government to grant us natural rights. Otherwise, what government grants, it can take, and anything it does, is right by definition, since it is the source of rights.

about two weeks ago

Submissions

SillyHamster hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

SillyHamster has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?