3 ms·
Where are you getting "sinister" from? There's no negative implication in the GP commenter - they were literally just describing the root cause. We're on Hacker
by smcl 10y ago
Where are you getting "sinister" from? There's no negative implication in the GP commenter - they were literally just describing the root cause. We're on Hacker News, I think it's safe to say that automating processes/jobs is our bread-and-butter.
The issue is that someone's trying to imply that merely proposing that the US has a modest minimum wage is enough to endanger people's livelihoods. To me that's the only sinister thing here - which is basically what my original comment was hinting at.
- dxhdr 10y agoI'd argue the root cause is the decreasing utility of unskilled labor in an increasingly automated economy. Automation is inevitable, not the result of a few executives "authorizing" R&D. Describing it that way is a gross mischaracterization. > The issue is that someone's trying to imply that merely proposing that the US has a modest minimum wage is enough to endanger people's livelihoods. I didn't interpret the argument that way. To me it read as: look, here's a machine replacing unskilled labor at the current minimum wage, imagine how much more common this will be if it were raised to $15? Unfortunately they didn't provide any actual economic analysis as to the answer to that question and instead just smeared a political party; very low quality article indeed.