5 ms·

It's not as though Amazon is going and pointing a gun at people's heads and telling them to Turk or die. If it's a bad trade for people to exchange their time

It's not as though Amazon is going and pointing a gun at people's heads and telling them to Turk or die. If it's a bad trade for people to exchange their time for the low wage, they shouldn't take it.

sp332 13y ago
This argument sounds good on paper, but it has centuries of evidence against it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union#History
- pessimizer 13y ago
  It doesn't even sound good on paper. You don't have to work if somebody puts a gun to your head, either. You have the freedom of choice to take the bullet if that's your preference.
tomgruner 13y ago
Rob, as a software engineer at google, I would not expect you to to be able to relate to those without opportunities. In fact, there is some evidence that utilizing your brain to solve technical problems can restrict its ability to empathize. Of course amazon has no gun, but that does not mean that poverty in itself is not violent. As you like science and data, here is a read for you: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121030161416.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121030161416.ht...
- tomgruner 13y ago
  FYI I am also a programmer and lack of empathy in my own life and relationships has caused me serious problems.
  - wehadfun 13y ago
    Wow maybe that's why I have some of these problems. Do you have any links to this evidence about solving problems causes lack of empathy
    - tomgruner 13y ago
      I don't have any good links or books unfortunately. There are a few people close to me that have a really great ability to empathize with others. They instantly understand social situations that will take me forever to get the dynamic. They respond to the needs of others much more quickly. I've tried to learn as much from them as possible - and often remember them when making decisions that have an impact others. But, I still have a long way to go. EDIT: I realized you are probably looking for that study. I don't think there is a free online version but you can purchase or read the abstract here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811912010646 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811912...
    - hrktb 13y ago
      It's just an intuition, but solving problems as a job might make you see every issue or bad situation as something to solve. Not that it's wrong, but the focus slightly shifts from what the people are feeling to how the problem could or should be solved, and we might take less time or emotional resource to empathize. The situation itself can also be seen less as a tragedy than some sad transitory state waiting to be solved, and we'd be less sorry for someone if somewhere we think it might be just temporary. I'd too would love to find studies or evidence about this subject. Edit: A report on the study tomgrunner linked in the sibling comment http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-10/cwru-era103012.php http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-10/cwru-era10301...
- icebraining 13y ago
  The study shows that analytical thinking prevents/reduces empathy in the moments right after engaging in it (few seconds break). It doesn't, as far as I can see, prove anything about long term effects, and in fact, it specifically says that at rest, people naturally switch between the states.
- bcoates 13y ago
  Perhaps he's empathic enough to realize what it's like to have few choices, then have a well-meaning but paternalistic social reformer swoop in and take some of those choices away, pat you on the head, and drive off back to his nice neighborhood.
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    There's another way of thinking about it, that involves no paternalistic behavior. The government forces you to put an accurate price on transactions. For example, say you have a year-old good-condition car. As I understand it, you can sell it for around what it's worth, considering circumstances, or you can give it away, but you can't sell it for $50.
gnaritas 13y ago
> If it's a bad trade for people to exchange their time for the low wage, they shouldn't take it. They may have little choice. You don't seem to understand what it means to be broke and unskilled.
- icebraining 13y ago
  But isn't that real problem? Not that MTurtk is available, but that people have no better choice? Attacking low paying jobs satisfies our moral outrage, but it doesn't actually help those wrote are left with nothing. We should concentrate in making sure people don't have to choose MTurk out of desperation, and banning it doesn't achieve that. This doesn't mean Amazon and companies like it are innocent in this situation, of course, but it bothers me that people concentrate on the cosmetics instead of the systemic problems.
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    > Attacking low paying jobs satisfies our moral outrage, but it doesn't actually help those wrote are left with nothing. Yes it does, the minimum wage goes hand in hand with the social safety net. Banning low wage jobs pushes those with no better choice into the safety net which is better than letting them try and work 90 hour weeks at jobs that don't pay a living wage. This frees up their time to actually do something about the problem rather than being stuck just trying to feed yourself while you work yourself to the bone.
    - icebraining 13y ago
      So what you're saying is that they actually have a better option, but they're unable to realize that, so we should decide for them because we know best? Or is the safety net not available to them because MTurk exists? Because if it's the latter, I don't see why wouldn't you just make it available, MTurk or not.
      - gnaritas 13y ago
        I'm not talking about MTurk specifically, but about all below minimum wage jobs. > but they're unable to realize that, so we should decide for them because we know best They are we, we are they, we're one society and if we democratically set a wage floor, then yes, we know best. That's rather the point of democracy, to remove choice about some things from the individual and make them together because it's better for us all despite what any one individual might choose. > Or is the safety net not available to them because MTurk exists? Because if it's the latter, I don't see why wouldn't you just make it available, MTurk or not. You'd be presuming the rules behind social programs are logical, they are not, they are designed by committee and as such can be haphazard and often illogical. Making money can actually hurt you if you're on the safety net because there's a hole where you're job would disqualify you for benefits that could exceed what the job would pay. Of course that varies state by state so there's no single answer to the question. So until the safety net is more logical and lets you work without putting you in a worse position, then it's rational to simply not allow jobs that don't pay a living wage. Many have proposed a basic income to avoid this problem.

sp332 13y ago

This argument sounds good on paper, but it has centuries of evidence against it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union#History

pessimizer 13y ago
It doesn't even sound good on paper. You don't have to work if somebody puts a gun to your head, either. You have the freedom of choice to take the bullet if that's your preference.

tomgruner 13y ago

Rob, as a software engineer at google, I would not expect you to to be able to relate to those without opportunities. In fact, there is some evidence that utilizing your brain to solve technical problems can restrict its ability to empathize. Of course amazon has no gun, but that does not mean that poverty in itself is not violent. As you like science and data, here is a read for you: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121030161416.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121030161416.ht...

tomgruner 13y ago
FYI I am also a programmer and lack of empathy in my own life and relationships has caused me serious problems.
- wehadfun 13y ago
  Wow maybe that's why I have some of these problems. Do you have any links to this evidence about solving problems causes lack of empathy
  - tomgruner 13y ago
    I don't have any good links or books unfortunately. There are a few people close to me that have a really great ability to empathize with others. They instantly understand social situations that will take me forever to get the dynamic. They respond to the needs of others much more quickly. I've tried to learn as much from them as possible - and often remember them when making decisions that have an impact others. But, I still have a long way to go. EDIT: I realized you are probably looking for that study. I don't think there is a free online version but you can purchase or read the abstract here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811912010646 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811912...
  - hrktb 13y ago
    It's just an intuition, but solving problems as a job might make you see every issue or bad situation as something to solve. Not that it's wrong, but the focus slightly shifts from what the people are feeling to how the problem could or should be solved, and we might take less time or emotional resource to empathize. The situation itself can also be seen less as a tragedy than some sad transitory state waiting to be solved, and we'd be less sorry for someone if somewhere we think it might be just temporary. I'd too would love to find studies or evidence about this subject. Edit: A report on the study tomgrunner linked in the sibling comment http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-10/cwru-era103012.php http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-10/cwru-era10301...
icebraining 13y ago
The study shows that analytical thinking prevents/reduces empathy in the moments right after engaging in it (few seconds break). It doesn't, as far as I can see, prove anything about long term effects, and in fact, it specifically says that at rest, people naturally switch between the states.
bcoates 13y ago
Perhaps he's empathic enough to realize what it's like to have few choices, then have a well-meaning but paternalistic social reformer swoop in and take some of those choices away, pat you on the head, and drive off back to his nice neighborhood.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  There's another way of thinking about it, that involves no paternalistic behavior. The government forces you to put an accurate price on transactions. For example, say you have a year-old good-condition car. As I understand it, you can sell it for around what it's worth, considering circumstances, or you can give it away, but you can't sell it for $50.

gnaritas 13y ago

> If it's a bad trade for people to exchange their time for the low wage, they shouldn't take it. They may have little choice. You don't seem to understand what it means to be broke and unskilled.

icebraining 13y ago
But isn't that real problem? Not that MTurtk is available, but that people have no better choice? Attacking low paying jobs satisfies our moral outrage, but it doesn't actually help those wrote are left with nothing. We should concentrate in making sure people don't have to choose MTurk out of desperation, and banning it doesn't achieve that. This doesn't mean Amazon and companies like it are innocent in this situation, of course, but it bothers me that people concentrate on the cosmetics instead of the systemic problems.
- gnaritas 13y ago
  > Attacking low paying jobs satisfies our moral outrage, but it doesn't actually help those wrote are left with nothing. Yes it does, the minimum wage goes hand in hand with the social safety net. Banning low wage jobs pushes those with no better choice into the safety net which is better than letting them try and work 90 hour weeks at jobs that don't pay a living wage. This frees up their time to actually do something about the problem rather than being stuck just trying to feed yourself while you work yourself to the bone.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    So what you're saying is that they actually have a better option, but they're unable to realize that, so we should decide for them because we know best? Or is the safety net not available to them because MTurk exists? Because if it's the latter, I don't see why wouldn't you just make it available, MTurk or not.
    - gnaritas 13y ago
      I'm not talking about MTurk specifically, but about all below minimum wage jobs. > but they're unable to realize that, so we should decide for them because we know best They are we, we are they, we're one society and if we democratically set a wage floor, then yes, we know best. That's rather the point of democracy, to remove choice about some things from the individual and make them together because it's better for us all despite what any one individual might choose. > Or is the safety net not available to them because MTurk exists? Because if it's the latter, I don't see why wouldn't you just make it available, MTurk or not. You'd be presuming the rules behind social programs are logical, they are not, they are designed by committee and as such can be haphazard and often illogical. Making money can actually hurt you if you're on the safety net because there's a hole where you're job would disqualify you for benefits that could exceed what the job would pay. Of course that varies state by state so there's no single answer to the question. So until the safety net is more logical and lets you work without putting you in a worse position, then it's rational to simply not allow jobs that don't pay a living wage. Many have proposed a basic income to avoid this problem.