3 ms·
See, even here the impulse is immediately to suggest cutting staff and directly saying that paying public servants is charity. You didn't addressed my point in
by SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
See, even here the impulse is immediately to suggest cutting staff and directly saying that paying public servants is charity. You didn't addressed my point in terms of CoL adjustments. How does adding AI enure that high performance, productive staff members get these adjustments without it being viewed as a waste of tax dollars by the public?
- Eumenes 3y agoI wouldn't suggest AI making policy decisions, but replacing jobs at the post office or DMV. You aren't entitled to a job. Congress can vote on CoL adjustments for workers, both at the state and federal levels. Right now, its pay to play - the unions, some of the largest political contributors in the US, just pay (bribe) the representatives to advocate for them, in return for donations to campaigns.
- SketchySeaBeast 3y ago> You aren't entitled to a job. Total non-sequitur. I didn't say anyone was. Not everyone is entitled to a job, but as you said in regards to policy decisions, there are jobs that are required. A lot of the mail service still needs to exist. We are nowhere near machines delivering the mail to people. And those people need to be paid and they need to live on that paycheck. > Congress can vote on CoL adjustments for workers, both at the state and federal levels. Yes, this is the mechanism, but that doesn't explain why or how they'd want to go with an adjustment. It's a bad look for a politician to give people a CoL adjustment - many people see it as their wage being stolen to pay another. I'm not saying that unions are the answer, but how do these workers have a voice when the public actively doesn't want them to be paid more?