3 ms·

> Higher pay to secure workers is universally understood today, from fastfood restruants to AI companies. Yeah... and guess what, restaurants are struggling to

> Higher pay to secure workers is universally understood today, from fastfood restruants to AI companies. Yeah... and guess what, restaurants are struggling to find people able to afford eating out. The AI companies are finding out that companies aren't willing to pay actually realistic, unsubsidized prices for tokens. A healthy economy needs the ability of people to spend, or it will go into a self-destructive spiral.

s1artibartfast 3mo ago
Yeah, and those restruant owners know they would have applications out the door if they payed $100/hr. That isnt secret knowledge reddit figured out and owners/managers cant comprehend.
- mschuster91 3mo ago
  The problem is they can't because otherwise even less people would come and dine. That's the central issue. Too much is too fucked up and especially, too much wealth is either tied up in the 1%'s assets or in pension funds, which leads back to my introduction comment: > That is a political thing. Normally, the government would need to step in on a large scale to fix that, but as we all know, the current government is utterly braindead and the competition will have their hands full with fixing the mess for too long to even think about the reforms needed.
  - s1artibartfast 3mo ago
    that problem has nothing to do with the 1% or pension funds tho. You cant fix the problem of low skill labor being inefficient by raising wages for that work. I dont want to pay someone $1000 to cut my lawn with scissiors when I can buy a lawnmower for $200. raising their wage doesnt solve that. Same for putting screws in an iphone. You cant have both the cheap iphone and the high paid worker. A government mandate doesnt solve this.
    - mschuster91 3mo ago
      > Same for putting screws in an iphone. You cant have both the cheap iphone and the high paid worker. I don't care if the iPhone is expensive if I have enough money to afford it regardless. And that's the point. Across the Western world, people do not have money any more because it all got diverted into shareholder pockets. Just look how the world was in the 70s-80s before neoliberalism and globalization took over. Billionaires were rare, companies paid their taxes (which were ridiculously higher than today), and they paid fair wages that allowed a single earner to comfortably own a suburbian house, a stay-at-home wife and two or three kids. And yet, the actual economy (i.e. people doing stuff, not numbers on spreadsheets) was booming. People bought stuff and kept the economy running. That is the time I want to go back to, only with instead of a stay-at-home wife both of us working 20 hours a week.
      - s1artibartfast 3mo ago
        yes, that sounds like a dream. I just dont think the economics work out the way you think they do. I think price goes up faster than wages. Also think your model of the 1970's are largely ficticious. For example, home ownership rate is higher today, houses are bigger, and occupied by fewer people.

s1artibartfast 3mo ago

Yeah, and those restruant owners know they would have applications out the door if they payed $100/hr. That isnt secret knowledge reddit figured out and owners/managers cant comprehend.

mschuster91 3mo ago
The problem is they can't because otherwise even less people would come and dine. That's the central issue. Too much is too fucked up and especially, too much wealth is either tied up in the 1%'s assets or in pension funds, which leads back to my introduction comment: > That is a political thing. Normally, the government would need to step in on a large scale to fix that, but as we all know, the current government is utterly braindead and the competition will have their hands full with fixing the mess for too long to even think about the reforms needed.
- s1artibartfast 3mo ago
  that problem has nothing to do with the 1% or pension funds tho. You cant fix the problem of low skill labor being inefficient by raising wages for that work. I dont want to pay someone $1000 to cut my lawn with scissiors when I can buy a lawnmower for $200. raising their wage doesnt solve that. Same for putting screws in an iphone. You cant have both the cheap iphone and the high paid worker. A government mandate doesnt solve this.
  - mschuster91 3mo ago
    > Same for putting screws in an iphone. You cant have both the cheap iphone and the high paid worker. I don't care if the iPhone is expensive if I have enough money to afford it regardless. And that's the point. Across the Western world, people do not have money any more because it all got diverted into shareholder pockets. Just look how the world was in the 70s-80s before neoliberalism and globalization took over. Billionaires were rare, companies paid their taxes (which were ridiculously higher than today), and they paid fair wages that allowed a single earner to comfortably own a suburbian house, a stay-at-home wife and two or three kids. And yet, the actual economy (i.e. people doing stuff, not numbers on spreadsheets) was booming. People bought stuff and kept the economy running. That is the time I want to go back to, only with instead of a stay-at-home wife both of us working 20 hours a week.
    - s1artibartfast 3mo ago
      yes, that sounds like a dream. I just dont think the economics work out the way you think they do. I think price goes up faster than wages. Also think your model of the 1970's are largely ficticious. For example, home ownership rate is higher today, houses are bigger, and occupied by fewer people.