4 ms·

are you really suggesting exploiting poor populations for menial work w/o social benefits, without dignity, suggesting they walk into some booth, put in a few h

are you really suggesting exploiting poor populations for menial work w/o social benefits, without dignity, suggesting they walk into some booth, put in a few hours of work without even the physical presence of co-workers and bosses that can appreciate their work? I'll go with "yes". Doing productive work, earning money, and gaining basic computer experience would be much better for everyone involved than panhandling on the street. In equally loaded terms, why would you deny poor people an opportunity to improve their lives?

pron 15y ago
Because this won't improve their lives one bit. It will turn them into drones working for the rich without dignity or respect. Not every transaction that is marginally beneficial to both sides is movement towards a global optimum. On the contrary, arguments like this, talking about improvement is simple "gradient descent". Instead of throwing the poor an insulting bone, using their desperation to gain beneficial work w/o treating them with dignity (benefits, appreciation), I suggest turning the bright minds of Silicon Valley for some true disruptive thinking. Think about this: is this suggestion going to provide the poor with true social mobility? Is this something our society can be proud of - poor people working for machines, as machines and getting paid by machines? Or is this another way to maximize profit by forsaking gainful, respectful employment, that can be somehow justified by "well, they'll be slightly better off?" Why not suggest a mechanism by which tech companies can truly offer the poor a hand that will last for generations and create a better society, one we can be truly proud of, even if it's at the cost of loss of some short-term profit? An investment in society's future, if you like. Surely this is something that will be beneficial for everyone in the long run.
- orangecat 15y ago
  Because this won't improve their lives one bit. Proof by assertion is not terribly convincing. Not every transaction that is marginally beneficial to both sides is movement towards a global optimum "Marginal" is more than zero bits. Think about this: is this suggestion going to provide the poor with true social mobility? I could easily see that happening. Is this something our society can be proud of - poor people working for machines, as machines and getting paid by machines? Even in those ridiculous terms (applicable to many white collar jobs), yes, compared to common alternatives like panhandling or selling drugs. Why not suggest a mechanism by which tech companies can truly offer the poor a hand that will last for generations and create a better society Go for it. In the meantime, stop standing in the way of people who are trying to improve things because you don't think they're improving them enough.
  - pron 15y ago
    I don't consider actively exploiting the poor as "not improving their lives enough". Neither do I consider marginal benefit a positive if it comes at the cost of exploitation. Thirdly, I don't see anyone moving from selling drugs to doing menial mechanical turk work. Lastly - I'm not standing in anyone's way. By all means - go and try to turn America's poor into Silicon Valley's drones rather than invest in their future. In China's sweatshops I can at least be fairly certain that the workers are greeted with a "hello" in the morning. Perhaps someone is even concerned if they don't show up for work. If you want to build hi-tech services on the backs of people who don't get even that - go ahead. I'll be marveling at the this new turn hi-tech capitalism is taking, while sitting in my armchair sipping tea and reading Charles Dickens.
    - Klinky 15y ago
      I agree with your compassion for humanity, but I'd think you're overemphasizing the benefits of having physical co-workers & a boss. There are many self-employed individuals who relish not having to deal with such things. I'd rather see emphasis on how this system would help someone improve their life & their community, instead of just being exploited by rich people in a foreign country.
    - ekianjo 15y ago
      The "sweatshops" in China that you seem to criticize are the ones offering slightly better paid-jobs to the ones who have nothing at all, who live a miserable life in the countryside. You seem to ignore that Everything derives from work. It gives the poor a way to earn a living, an activity to count on, some sense of being independent (instead of relying on welfare), and it enables them to save (even a little) money. It makes them responsible. It provides them experience that they can build on to become better at what they do and aspire for something a little more advanced. Most poor people who work do not stay at the bottom of their society for their whole life. Work is an effective social ladder, and where we stand right now is the downright proof of it. "Exploitation" is only a matter of point of view. What you see as exploitation is not an universal, tangible truth for everyone in this world.
    - lusr 15y ago

pron 15y ago

Because this won't improve their lives one bit. It will turn them into drones working for the rich without dignity or respect. Not every transaction that is marginally beneficial to both sides is movement towards a global optimum. On the contrary, arguments like this, talking about improvement is simple "gradient descent". Instead of throwing the poor an insulting bone, using their desperation to gain beneficial work w/o treating them with dignity (benefits, appreciation), I suggest turning the bright minds of Silicon Valley for some true disruptive thinking. Think about this: is this suggestion going to provide the poor with true social mobility? Is this something our society can be proud of - poor people working for machines, as machines and getting paid by machines? Or is this another way to maximize profit by forsaking gainful, respectful employment, that can be somehow justified by "well, they'll be slightly better off?" Why not suggest a mechanism by which tech companies can truly offer the poor a hand that will last for generations and create a better society, one we can be truly proud of, even if it's at the cost of loss of some short-term profit? An investment in society's future, if you like. Surely this is something that will be beneficial for everyone in the long run.

orangecat 15y ago
Because this won't improve their lives one bit. Proof by assertion is not terribly convincing. Not every transaction that is marginally beneficial to both sides is movement towards a global optimum "Marginal" is more than zero bits. Think about this: is this suggestion going to provide the poor with true social mobility? I could easily see that happening. Is this something our society can be proud of - poor people working for machines, as machines and getting paid by machines? Even in those ridiculous terms (applicable to many white collar jobs), yes, compared to common alternatives like panhandling or selling drugs. Why not suggest a mechanism by which tech companies can truly offer the poor a hand that will last for generations and create a better society Go for it. In the meantime, stop standing in the way of people who are trying to improve things because you don't think they're improving them enough.
- pron 15y ago
  I don't consider actively exploiting the poor as "not improving their lives enough". Neither do I consider marginal benefit a positive if it comes at the cost of exploitation. Thirdly, I don't see anyone moving from selling drugs to doing menial mechanical turk work. Lastly - I'm not standing in anyone's way. By all means - go and try to turn America's poor into Silicon Valley's drones rather than invest in their future. In China's sweatshops I can at least be fairly certain that the workers are greeted with a "hello" in the morning. Perhaps someone is even concerned if they don't show up for work. If you want to build hi-tech services on the backs of people who don't get even that - go ahead. I'll be marveling at the this new turn hi-tech capitalism is taking, while sitting in my armchair sipping tea and reading Charles Dickens.
  - Klinky 15y ago
    I agree with your compassion for humanity, but I'd think you're overemphasizing the benefits of having physical co-workers & a boss. There are many self-employed individuals who relish not having to deal with such things. I'd rather see emphasis on how this system would help someone improve their life & their community, instead of just being exploited by rich people in a foreign country.
  - ekianjo 15y ago
    The "sweatshops" in China that you seem to criticize are the ones offering slightly better paid-jobs to the ones who have nothing at all, who live a miserable life in the countryside. You seem to ignore that Everything derives from work. It gives the poor a way to earn a living, an activity to count on, some sense of being independent (instead of relying on welfare), and it enables them to save (even a little) money. It makes them responsible. It provides them experience that they can build on to become better at what they do and aspire for something a little more advanced. Most poor people who work do not stay at the bottom of their society for their whole life. Work is an effective social ladder, and where we stand right now is the downright proof of it. "Exploitation" is only a matter of point of view. What you see as exploitation is not an universal, tangible truth for everyone in this world.
  - lusr 15y ago