4 ms·

You're building a strawman here. I don't try to fix the world. I'm trying hard to not be poor again myself, yes. In this topic I'm just stating very narrow arg

You're building a strawman here. I don't try to fix the world. I'm trying hard to not be poor again myself, yes. In this topic I'm just stating very narrow argument that 2$/hr is better than nothing. And a company who offers it here does more good than companies who don't offer those jobs and even more good than people trying to prevent it from doing so. Most of your very long argument is judging me for things I haven't said, done or thought.

ninjagoo 4y ago
Just so we're clear - I'm not arguing that the Kenyans should not be offered the jobs, I'm arguing that they should have been paid at least $15/hr - that's what equal-pay-for-equal-work means. That they were paid only $2/hr is the exploitation. Yes, my arguments are very direct and uncomfortable to hear, but if I may remind you, the judging started with your accusing me of hypocrisy, and of taking away rats from starving people, and of wanting poor people to die, when I neither said nor implied any such thing. You, Sir, even used "high morals" as a pejorative dog whistle against me. And now you want to go back to the very narrow argument? Don't dish it out if you can't handle the blowback.
- kuboble 4y ago
  Oh, don't get me wrong. Your statement in this case is hypocritical. And I stand by my argument and rat analogy. It's just that I'm pointing out that I'm trying to discuss this particular event of offering 2$ jobs. Even if I use a rat as an analogy we are discussing this topic. You're attacking my whole person and belief system strawmanning it by talking about e.g. my opinion on taxes or other stuff. > I'm arguing that they should have been paid at least $15/hr - I'm arguing that 1) you are acting against Kenyan interests if you prefer status quo over this 2$ opportunity. 2) And you think you do morally right thing by doing so. Which of those two statements are incorrect? And please focus your answer without using angry aggressive language or I will not humor you with more replies. Here is a timeline: - there are poor people with no opportunities - you don't even know our think about it - someone offered them 2$ - you say, No! They should be paid 15$ - hypothetical: the company decides to comply with your argument and stops offering 2$ jobs In this htpothetical case: - have you done favor to the Kenyans?
  - ninjagoo 4y ago
    Yes, because they would be getting $15 jobs instead of $2 jobs. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand, that the Kenyans getting $15 is better than them getting $2. You are acting against the Kenyans' interest if you want them to get only $2 instead of the $15 that they deserve. You might have your realpolitik moralizing that poor people should accept the $2 because they are starving but they should be getting the $15 that is rightfully theirs, and that additional $13 will help many more starving people than $2 will because the additional $13 will create more opportunities in their economy.
    - kuboble 4y ago
      > Yes, because they would be getting $15 jobs instead of $2 jobs No. They would get nothing instead. I totally agree that 15$ would be likely better for them. But the 15$ isn't rightfully theirs. With this opportunity gone they will go back to their <1$/hr but without you thinking about them being exploited.
      - ninjagoo 4y ago
        > No. They would get nothing instead. What's your basis for this claim? Or is it simply that is how it is structured in your hypothetical without regard to reality? > I totally agree that 15$ would be likely better for them. But the 15$ isn't rightfully theirs. Why do you think the $15 is not rightfully theirs? They did the work, didn't they?
        kuboble 4y ago
        So right now the local market pays them 1$. Once the external 2$ is gone where will the 15$ come from?
        ninjagoo 4y ago
        The $15 is external too. OpenAI should have paid $15/hr for the work, not exploited them by paying only $2/hr. Why is it exploitative? Because the money (OpenAI, "Capital") can move across borders easily to get cheaper costs, but labor cannot move across borders easily to get higher salaries, so labor is forced to accept a lower wage. If that asymmetry was not there and both labor and capital had similar freedom AND ease of movement, then it would not have been exploitative. And I believe this is why the EU enshrines freedom-of-movement as one of its basic principles along with a common market. Otherwise capital in a common market would be easily able to move and exploit labor in various regions, because labor wouldn't have been able to move. But the freedom-of-movement right reduces that asymmetry. It doesn't completely eliminate the asymmetry because it's still hard to move to a different language and community, but at least there's no artificial barrier like a border, and money also has the same barriers around language and not being trusted automatically in a different community.

ninjagoo 4y ago

Just so we're clear - I'm not arguing that the Kenyans should not be offered the jobs, I'm arguing that they should have been paid at least $15/hr - that's what equal-pay-for-equal-work means. That they were paid only $2/hr is the exploitation. Yes, my arguments are very direct and uncomfortable to hear, but if I may remind you, the judging started with your accusing me of hypocrisy, and of taking away rats from starving people, and of wanting poor people to die, when I neither said nor implied any such thing. You, Sir, even used "high morals" as a pejorative dog whistle against me. And now you want to go back to the very narrow argument? Don't dish it out if you can't handle the blowback.

kuboble 4y ago
Oh, don't get me wrong. Your statement in this case is hypocritical. And I stand by my argument and rat analogy. It's just that I'm pointing out that I'm trying to discuss this particular event of offering 2$ jobs. Even if I use a rat as an analogy we are discussing this topic. You're attacking my whole person and belief system strawmanning it by talking about e.g. my opinion on taxes or other stuff. > I'm arguing that they should have been paid at least $15/hr - I'm arguing that 1) you are acting against Kenyan interests if you prefer status quo over this 2$ opportunity. 2) And you think you do morally right thing by doing so. Which of those two statements are incorrect? And please focus your answer without using angry aggressive language or I will not humor you with more replies. Here is a timeline: - there are poor people with no opportunities - you don't even know our think about it - someone offered them 2$ - you say, No! They should be paid 15$ - hypothetical: the company decides to comply with your argument and stops offering 2$ jobs In this htpothetical case: - have you done favor to the Kenyans?
- ninjagoo 4y ago
  Yes, because they would be getting $15 jobs instead of $2 jobs. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand, that the Kenyans getting $15 is better than them getting $2. You are acting against the Kenyans' interest if you want them to get only $2 instead of the $15 that they deserve. You might have your realpolitik moralizing that poor people should accept the $2 because they are starving but they should be getting the $15 that is rightfully theirs, and that additional $13 will help many more starving people than $2 will because the additional $13 will create more opportunities in their economy.
  - kuboble 4y ago
    > Yes, because they would be getting $15 jobs instead of $2 jobs No. They would get nothing instead. I totally agree that 15$ would be likely better for them. But the 15$ isn't rightfully theirs. With this opportunity gone they will go back to their <1$/hr but without you thinking about them being exploited.
    - ninjagoo 4y ago
      > No. They would get nothing instead. What's your basis for this claim? Or is it simply that is how it is structured in your hypothetical without regard to reality? > I totally agree that 15$ would be likely better for them. But the 15$ isn't rightfully theirs. Why do you think the $15 is not rightfully theirs? They did the work, didn't they?
      - kuboble 4y ago
        So right now the local market pays them 1$. Once the external 2$ is gone where will the 15$ come from?
        ninjagoo 4y ago
        The $15 is external too. OpenAI should have paid $15/hr for the work, not exploited them by paying only $2/hr. Why is it exploitative? Because the money (OpenAI, "Capital") can move across borders easily to get cheaper costs, but labor cannot move across borders easily to get higher salaries, so labor is forced to accept a lower wage. If that asymmetry was not there and both labor and capital had similar freedom AND ease of movement, then it would not have been exploitative. And I believe this is why the EU enshrines freedom-of-movement as one of its basic principles along with a common market. Otherwise capital in a common market would be easily able to move and exploit labor in various regions, because labor wouldn't have been able to move. But the freedom-of-movement right reduces that asymmetry. It doesn't completely eliminate the asymmetry because it's still hard to move to a different language and community, but at least there's no artificial barrier like a border, and money also has the same barriers around language and not being trusted automatically in a different community.