4 ms·

Hilarious. I think it's good for an economy to offer jobs, even ones you find demeaning. People are free to not take those jobs. If enough people don't take

Hilarious. I think it's good for an economy to offer jobs, even ones you find demeaning. People are free to not take those jobs. If enough people don't take that job, then they'll have to either offer more money for the job, or they'll have to find a new way to do the job. I believe in markets. I believe in minimum wages as well, but those are not mutually exclusive concepts. You dismiss this entire line of reasoning as "willful ignorance," rather than ACTUALLY RESPONDING TO IT AND TELLING ME WHY YOU DISAGREE. Sorry, but that's just arrogant and rude. I had a completely different problem with kefka, which was that they said "Great idea." As though this concept of turkification were something new. It's not something new. Therefore, objecting to THIS idea on the basis of it "being a new idea" is a bad argument. If you want to reject the entire category of turk jobs, that's ANOTHER DISCUSSION. See? Two different arguments. So don't conflate them, okay?

wpietri 12y ago
I understand that you have a faith in markets; free-market fundamentalism is depressingly common on HN. This points out a problem, which is that we are not acting with sufficient empathy toward the people who are doing the work: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9108579 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9108579 Here you shallowly dismiss that the problem is a problem at all: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9108684 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9108684 That's the willful ignorance I'm talking about. It is not my job to solve your ignorance here, but suffice to say that I don't think the markets-solve-everything hypothesis stands up when you look at historical problems with labor issues over, say, the last century. Markets are fine tools when we set out to solve a particular problem, but they have been poor masters.
- kefka 12y ago
  Precisely. Markets (and capitalism) are great tools. They should not be seen as the end-all-be-all. Same with socialism, communism, as well as other socioeconomic -isms. The failing of the markets is the lack of empathy for the fellow human. We know from the way the US looks how capitalism fails. Poor people are disempowered and marginalized from the system, because little money = little power over self. There is also a downward push to bring everyone into poverty. The current gig economy and using mTurk are both ways to make previous corporate internalites to the public as externalities, whilst privatizing profit. Along with that, they also rely on having none of the protections of an employee, yet with all the requirements of one. It conveniently gets rid of the reforms we fought for in the '30s. Are there solutions to the marginalization of the workforce, along with poverty working class? Yes. 1. Minimum income. Everybody gets it, regardless of a means test. This could be built up by the local level or state, where fees and fines and such could start the basis of a minimum income, even if it's $20/mo. Start small, look big. 2. Change laws to encourage worker cooperatives. Worker cooperatives, like Mondragon, have shown that they care for the fellow worker, because they all own the company as well as manage the company. It would also fit inside our current idea of ownership and contracts. The goal here is to enable political decisions to make company creation in this route easier. Thus the 3'rd... 3. Change unemployment law that allows you and 9 of your unemployed friends who want to start a cooperative to cash out of rest of unemployment to start a business: a worker cooperative. This has been a law in Italy since '85, and is greatly successful. And given how small businesses are celebrated, this should be a great law to pass regardless party.
- VikingCoder 12y ago
  "markets-solve-everything" When did I say that? I actually said explicitly that I believe in minimum wage. That already puts me well out of free-market fundamentalism. If you've read some of my comments on HN, you'll see that I'm also in favor of regulation. I happen to also believe that a Basic Living Standard is necessary. I wish we had single-payer health care. And I'm all for free, socialized education. (With BLS [stipend] on top of it.) So, no, I'd say I fall WELL outside of the free-market fundamentalism you're referring to. So, when you call me willfully ignorant, it's pretty damned offensive. I happen to think data entry is demeaning. Some people enjoy it. I think busing tables is demeaning. Some people enjoy it. I have a friend who loves moving boxes in a factory, because he has free time to think about his poetry. I would never want to sell tooth paste to a super-market chain. Some people like to deal cards at casinos. Some like to sell pull-tabs. Some are waiters and airline stewards. Some people clean bedpans. Some clean houses after grisly murders. Some people LOVE being a concierge. Well, this is a digital concierge service. And just because you and bendoernberg think it's menial and degrading, doesn't mean IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL TO OFFER THAT JOB. Or, that we as a culture should be embarrassed that job exists. If a person hates their job, I want to give them every chance to get out of that job. Every chance. But you're angry the job exists... regardless of whether someone WANTS to do it, for the pay they receive? > we are not acting with sufficient empathy toward the people who are doing the work I can't imagine why you think that of me. My grandpa worked four jobs at a time, sometime - because he grew up during the Great Depression, and if you can get work, you work. He set bowling pins. He delivered milk. He drove a school bus. He laid brick. All kinds of crap. Meanwhile, I TYPE in an air-conditioned building, and they pay me VASTLY more than he ever earned. It's ridiculous. And my peers are upset because the product owner violated the spirit of Agile when he made them change priorities mid-sprint (because we were shipping defective product). WHAT? GET OVER YOURSELF! I want affordable housing. I want upward mobility. I want meritocracy and elbow grease. I want a safety net, and government-supplied-bootstraps. I want people to be able to declare bankruptcy, unlike today. I want an immigration system that's less like the mythical Labyrinth, and has empathy for immigrants. So, are you really "solving my ignorance," or are you reading WAY TOO MUCH into one line of thought - and then running with it, half-cocked, and totally arrogant?
  - wpietri 12y ago

wpietri 12y ago

I understand that you have a faith in markets; free-market fundamentalism is depressingly common on HN. This points out a problem, which is that we are not acting with sufficient empathy toward the people who are doing the work: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9108579 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9108579 Here you shallowly dismiss that the problem is a problem at all: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9108684 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9108684 That's the willful ignorance I'm talking about. It is not my job to solve your ignorance here, but suffice to say that I don't think the markets-solve-everything hypothesis stands up when you look at historical problems with labor issues over, say, the last century. Markets are fine tools when we set out to solve a particular problem, but they have been poor masters.

kefka 12y ago
Precisely. Markets (and capitalism) are great tools. They should not be seen as the end-all-be-all. Same with socialism, communism, as well as other socioeconomic -isms. The failing of the markets is the lack of empathy for the fellow human. We know from the way the US looks how capitalism fails. Poor people are disempowered and marginalized from the system, because little money = little power over self. There is also a downward push to bring everyone into poverty. The current gig economy and using mTurk are both ways to make previous corporate internalites to the public as externalities, whilst privatizing profit. Along with that, they also rely on having none of the protections of an employee, yet with all the requirements of one. It conveniently gets rid of the reforms we fought for in the '30s. Are there solutions to the marginalization of the workforce, along with poverty working class? Yes. 1. Minimum income. Everybody gets it, regardless of a means test. This could be built up by the local level or state, where fees and fines and such could start the basis of a minimum income, even if it's $20/mo. Start small, look big. 2. Change laws to encourage worker cooperatives. Worker cooperatives, like Mondragon, have shown that they care for the fellow worker, because they all own the company as well as manage the company. It would also fit inside our current idea of ownership and contracts. The goal here is to enable political decisions to make company creation in this route easier. Thus the 3'rd... 3. Change unemployment law that allows you and 9 of your unemployed friends who want to start a cooperative to cash out of rest of unemployment to start a business: a worker cooperative. This has been a law in Italy since '85, and is greatly successful. And given how small businesses are celebrated, this should be a great law to pass regardless party.
VikingCoder 12y ago
"markets-solve-everything" When did I say that? I actually said explicitly that I believe in minimum wage. That already puts me well out of free-market fundamentalism. If you've read some of my comments on HN, you'll see that I'm also in favor of regulation. I happen to also believe that a Basic Living Standard is necessary. I wish we had single-payer health care. And I'm all for free, socialized education. (With BLS [stipend] on top of it.) So, no, I'd say I fall WELL outside of the free-market fundamentalism you're referring to. So, when you call me willfully ignorant, it's pretty damned offensive. I happen to think data entry is demeaning. Some people enjoy it. I think busing tables is demeaning. Some people enjoy it. I have a friend who loves moving boxes in a factory, because he has free time to think about his poetry. I would never want to sell tooth paste to a super-market chain. Some people like to deal cards at casinos. Some like to sell pull-tabs. Some are waiters and airline stewards. Some people clean bedpans. Some clean houses after grisly murders. Some people LOVE being a concierge. Well, this is a digital concierge service. And just because you and bendoernberg think it's menial and degrading, doesn't mean IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL TO OFFER THAT JOB. Or, that we as a culture should be embarrassed that job exists. If a person hates their job, I want to give them every chance to get out of that job. Every chance. But you're angry the job exists... regardless of whether someone WANTS to do it, for the pay they receive? > we are not acting with sufficient empathy toward the people who are doing the work I can't imagine why you think that of me. My grandpa worked four jobs at a time, sometime - because he grew up during the Great Depression, and if you can get work, you work. He set bowling pins. He delivered milk. He drove a school bus. He laid brick. All kinds of crap. Meanwhile, I TYPE in an air-conditioned building, and they pay me VASTLY more than he ever earned. It's ridiculous. And my peers are upset because the product owner violated the spirit of Agile when he made them change priorities mid-sprint (because we were shipping defective product). WHAT? GET OVER YOURSELF! I want affordable housing. I want upward mobility. I want meritocracy and elbow grease. I want a safety net, and government-supplied-bootstraps. I want people to be able to declare bankruptcy, unlike today. I want an immigration system that's less like the mythical Labyrinth, and has empathy for immigrants. So, are you really "solving my ignorance," or are you reading WAY TOO MUCH into one line of thought - and then running with it, half-cocked, and totally arrogant?
- wpietri 12y ago