|
Ardennes posted:Considering that we have had a higher minimum wage than that inflation adjusted, and there isn't real evidence of it causing significantly higher unemployment, where is the evidence here? In the late 1960s it was over $10 at one point, unemployment at that time was hovering around 4%. This is not to mention examples from other economies. Employment data is extremely noisy, and studies which do a good job correcting for that noise by doing comparisons between contiguous areas implementing a minimum wage differential are not highly powered. There's lots of reason to believe the minimal impact on employment detected in these studies is due to the nature of the studies themselves. http://econweb.tamu.edu/jmeer/Meer_West_Minimum_Wage.pdf "We argue that the minimum wage will impact employment over time, through changes in growth rather than an immediate drop in relative employment levels. We conduct simulations showing that commonly used specifications in this literature, especially those that include state-specific time trends, will not accurately capture these effects. Using three separate state panels of administrative employment data, we find that the minimum wage reduces job growth over a period of several years." quote:If this is just about automation, then you need to provide evidence especially since technological change is rather inflexible and capital costs for the type of automation people are fearing is high. In addition, many employees are going to be difficult to replace. For example supermarkets got rid of some of their clerks but the rest of the staff as remained because they had to be there. Would they have stopped if wages were even lower or frozen? Probably not The automation that is going to happen will happen one way or another but technological inflexibility is going to reign it in. In comparison, the advantages of higher wages will be immediate and long-lasting. The automation study that's been posted in the thread reaches the opposite conclusion. quote:I just haven't heard a good argument against significantly higher wages at this point. As for LA, 40% of the workforce in LA makes between $9 and $15 Los Angeles isn't as wealthy as San Francisco and is a more diverse city, household median income is $56,000 (versus $73,000 for SF) in 2011. In comparison, median nationwide income was $52,000. LA is not real extraordinary and should be a good case example. Furthermore, UC Berkeley did a study along with it, and showed a minimum wage is going to have a minimal effect. I agree that LA will provide interesting data. The UC Berkeley study didn't show a minimal employment effect from the proposed minimum wage, it assumed a minimal employment effect from the wage. Other studies, with different assumptions, expect significant negative effects on job growth. http://www.lachamber.com/clientuploads/pdf/Beacon%20Minimum%20Wage%20Report%202015.03.18_Final.pdf VitalSigns posted:McJobs pay $20/hr in Denmark, so we're free to raise it to whatever, just as long as we stay below that they can be our canary. Once they have androids manning the grills and upselling apple pies at the drive-thru, we can call an all-hands meeting here in America and go "welp it was a good run, time to work for 50 cents an hour here to keep the machines at bay for a few decades, throw out your prescriptions and I hope you stocked up on Cup Noodle during the good times" There are a lot of reasons why a straight comparison with Denmark is pretty useless. 1) Cost of living is much higher in Denmark. 21/hr adjusted for ppp is around 14/hr. 2) Tax rates are much higher in Denmark. The lowest marginal rate is around 41%. 3) Social services are much better in Denmark, so anyone pushed into unemployment isn't nearly as badly off as they would be in the US. 4) Denmark has far fewer low-education requirement jobs and low-education workers. A minimum wage is much more likely to have positive effects in a labor market where workers are in high demand than one where they aren’t. Also note that there are 2/3 fewer fast food outlets and jobs in Denmark than the US per capita, and fast food prices are 50% higher. If Denmark is your canary in the coal mine for price and employment impacts from a minimum wage, the canary is already dead. moller posted:Denmark is ~culturally homogenous~ which is skynet kryptonite. Denmark is culturally homogenous which probably made achieving a robust welfare state and excellent social services easier to achieve. Think about the Southern strategy, which was explicitly about appealing to racism to resist the expansion of the welfare state. archangelwar posted:Well don't be shy, what would it be?! Probably around half the average wage in a given labor market. What do you think it would be? How high is too high?
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:25 |
|
|
archangelwar posted:I am just spit balling here, but perhaps in the minimum wage legislation we could set a date for it to take effect at some point in the future so that companies could prepare for the increase. I know this is a huge departure from how things are done now, where laws are passed and take effect immediately without any means of preparation, but surely we can sacrifice just this once for the sake of profit. Maybe that will matter but I can't see how. What form do you imagine that preparation is going to take? VitalSigns posted:I don't see any advantage to trying to preserve business too poorly run to deal with unexpected price changes, because they'll just go belly-up in the next commodities shock anyway Let's definitely agree that temporary shocks in commodities are the same as large, permanent, and exogenous cost increases all throughout the economy.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
In the future, a higher minimum wage won't be enough to help most workers as automation increases. In my view, the best interim solution is to federally mandate a minimum wage indexed to cost of living across all 50 states, probably by county. We can do this already, we certainly have the data available. This would lift millions of people out of poverty almost immediately, minimize disruption to effective business, and force businesses that rely on paying slave wages to their employees to stay afloat to rethink their models or disappear. Good things, all. However, it seems inevitable that we'll reach a point where a growing population and fewer jobs that require human skills creates an increasing number of people that will never be able to find steady employment, regardless of the minimum wage. The minimum wage doesn't go far enough. A truly exceptional society, one that America no longer is but desperately still claims to be, would provide a UBI to its citizens, again indexed to the costs of living in the area, tied to inflation. The UBI would be financed through a combination of a few different things: 1. Levying a small transaction-tax on high-frequency trading on the stock market 2. Removing the cap on contributions to Medicare and Social Security. 3. Raising the highest marginal tax rate from 34-35% (to the point that in combination of the other factors allows the program to remain viable) 4. Providing tax incentives to businesses that keep their jobs in America and tax disincentives to those that do not 5. Gradually paring back America's military budget
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The automation study that's been posted in the thread reaches the opposite conclusion. You keep using that study. I don't think it means what you think it means. Jokes aside, you keep putting a lot of words in the authors mouths and extrapolating conclusions that are not in the study itself. The automation probability is not a function of capital replacement costs. Nor does account for social acceptance. It is entirely possible for jobs to survive automation purely because humans prefer having other humans do the work. So continuing to invoke the specter of inevitability is similar to invoking the heat death of the universe. quote:Probably around half the average wage in a given labor market. What do you think it would be? How high is too high? You seem to be evading again. Can you get specific? Take a position man! Give us some numbers! It is fine if you want to break it up by job category, but show us your work!
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:You keep using that study. I don't think it means what you think it means. "According to our estimates, about 47 percent of total US employment is at risk. We further provide evidence that wages and educational attainment exhibit a strong negative relationship with an occupation’s probability of computerisation." A big portion of the study is Suprise! Many service positions will be automated. I think it's you that fails to understand the implications of the study. quote:You seem to be evading again. Can you get specific? Take a position man! Give us some numbers! It is fine if you want to break it up by job category, but show us your work! "Half the average wage in a particular labor market" is actually very specific. Again, you seem to be the one evading here. What minimum wage do you think maximizes benefits to the poor? Can the rate be too high?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Saying that a wage that is at least a dollar below the living wage at its absolute minimum anywhere in the USA is of the maximum possible benefit sounds psychotically cruel.
|
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:"According to our estimates, about 47 percent of total US employment is at risk. We further provide evidence that wages and educational attainment exhibit a strong negative relationship with an occupation’s probability of computerisation." That has nothing to do with whether raising wages will accelerate the possibility of automation, which is a thing you keep trotting out as a reason to not raise minimum wage. quote:"Half the average wage in a particular labor market" is actually very specific. Again, you seem to be the one evading here. What minimum wage do you think maximizes benefits to the poor? Can the rate be too high? The half the average wage of fast food cooks would probably end up being less than the current minimum wage, which you said you would not support lowering. So how are you defining these markets and wages? Why go through such complexity when you can just define a single minimum? And we have talked about indexing the minimum wage with inflation, but you can't do that under your scenario. If this were a bill, how would you word it? I have come out in support of the $15/hour min wage, it is not some secret, so it is really weird why you are trying to turn this around on me. Edit: Looking at BLS data from 2014 says that your new proposed minimum wage is $4.20/hour. Wow. archangelwar fucked around with this message at 22:00 on May 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Saying that a wage that is at least a dollar below the living wage at its absolute minimum anywhere in the USA is of the maximum possible benefit sounds psychotically cruel. Perhaps judging policies based on how they affect your emotional state, as opposed to predicting their likely real world outcomes, is not a great idea. archangelwar posted:That has nothing to do with whether raising wages will accelerate the possibility of automation, which is a thing you keep trotting out as a reason to not raise minimum wage. Yes, the study only suggests which jobs are susceptible to automation. It turns out the jobs most susceptible are low-wage, low-education-requirement jobs. Since businesses are motivated by profits, and would choose to automate only if doing so increases profits, it's completely obvious that artificially raising labor costs would accelerate the rate at which businesses automate jobs where automation is possible. If we assume that the relative cost of automation goes down over time, promoting higher wages must also promote earlier automation. quote:The half the average wage of fast food cooks would probably end up being less than the current minimum wage, which you said you would not support lowering. So how are you defining these markets and wages? Why go through such complexity when you can just define a single minimum? And we have talked about indexing the minimum wage with inflation, but you can't do that under your scenario. If this were a bill, how would you word it? I'm not suggesting a minimum wage for each industry, I'm suggesting a minimum wage for each locality based on the average wage in that locality. That's a lot more likely to be efficient. How do you know the $15 dollar minimum wage maximizes benefits to the poor? Do you just feel it in your gut? Could it go higher and provide more benefits? Is there some point at which the minimum wage would become too high and actually start harming workers? How do you know where it is?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 22:06
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm suggesting a minimum wage for each locality based on the average wage in that locality. lol JeffersonClay posted:Could it go higher and provide more benefits? Yes quote:Is there some point at which the minimum wage would become too high and actually start harming workers?
|
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Hopefully the poor can eat ethics, then. I thought "you think the minimum wage can increase without bound without negative consequences" was supposed to be a straw-man.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
The Onion weighs in: http://www.theonion.com/graphic/pros-and-cons-raising-minimum-wage-50476 PROS Lifts workers out of poverty to brink of poverty One less thing to feel lovely about when leaving Chick-fil-A Shorter lines at pawn shops Higher morale among workers who aren’t casualties of cost-cutting layoffs Gets picketers out of pathway to Big Mac Bargain compared to cost of creating actual social safety net CONS Workers will grow complacent and lazy if they can afford basic human needs Still just as insulting that your boss pays you lowest amount he or she legally allowed to Awkwardness of being served by cashiers wearing top hats and monocles 16-year-old cashier set to live like loving king for rest of summer Employee benefits like paid vacation, gym membership, and yoga sessions could be slashed for thousands of line cooks and convenience store clerks Increases expense of exploiting workers
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 22:16
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Hopefully the poor can eat ethics, then. Employment shouldn't be tied to survival, hth
|
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:16-year-old cashier set to live like loving king for rest of summer Even if you think that only teenagers earn minimum wage increasing it would be an economic boon as they spend their extra money on even more stupid poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Employment shouldn't be tied to survival, hth Then what's the point of a living wage if you don't need a wage to live?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:This is the dumbest argument. The economy of the late 60's was totally different and that money meant something totally different. No money didn't mean something different fundamentally to the economy, and the differences with the 1960s are particularly meaningful when talking about a minimum wage. Just because manufacturing was a higher percentage of the workforce isn't immediately important, if anything automation would reduce employment in manufacturing quicker if anything. Chalets the Baka posted:Phasing in wage hikes is just a way to appease the crowd of doomsayers who think everything will collapse if workers are paid a decent wage at the time they actually need it. A phase-in of a minimum wage increase should take a year, maybe two, at the most. The longer it takes to phase in a minimum wage increase, the less that minimum wage is worth. The art of compromise, it is easier to boil a frog slowly. Geriatric Pirate posted:lol. I remember in the last minimum wage thread, someone pointed out that people like greeters or baggers in supermarkets could easily lose their jobs and then one of you guys tried to argue that they're just too important to ever be fired ("competition wouldn't allow for it"), completely oblivious to the fact that in ~socialist workers paradise Western Europe~, you're unlikely to find a single supermarket with a greeter or a bagger. Not to mention the introduction of automatic cashiers and so on... Basically, there's quite a lot that can still be done with supermarkets. It isn't they never can be fired, but that a minimum wage is going to be what sets off a firing panic rather then companies adopting technology and restructuring overtime regardless of the prevailing minimum wage. JeffersonClay posted:Employment data is extremely noisy, and studies which do a good job correcting for that noise by doing comparisons between contiguous areas implementing a minimum wage differential are not highly powered. There's lots of reason to believe the minimal impact on employment detected in these studies is due to the nature of the studies themselves. The issue is to what meaningful levels, and whether socially they are above the gains of wages themselves, I suspect they aren't. quote:The automation study that's been posted in the thread reaches the opposite conclusion. Remember the issue isn't automation happens but that a rise in the minimum wage is going to cause such further damage to make any raise in wages irrelevant. quote:I agree that LA will provide interesting data. The UC Berkeley study didn't show a minimal employment effect from the proposed minimum wage, it assumed a minimal employment effect from the wage. Other studies, with different assumptions, expect significant negative effects on job growth. The Beacon report was sponsored by the LA Chamber of Commerce itself. quote:There are a lot of reasons why a straight comparison with Denmark is pretty useless. The culturally homogeneous argument is already a red herring, Denmark has a large populist far-right anti-immigrant party already. Its politics isn't that different. But at the heart of the matter is the fact the comparative lack of social services in the US compared to Denmark isn't an argument for a rock bottom minimum wage but for a higher minimum wage simply because it is the only re-distributive measures we have. In Denmark, their taxes flow back into the system, in the US they don't because we don't have a system to begin with. As for a "canary in the coal mine" the issue isn't necessarily fast food prices (which are up to demand) but the quality of life gained from the system. In your perfect world, you want to lock the population in low wages without social services for perpetuity rather than risk job losses. It isn't a sustainable system even now, and our relative lack of education isn't going to be helped by keeping wages low either. Btw, saying localities should handle it is a non-answer when you start looking at many localities the US and the amount of politics gridlock in it. Also, treating automation as a sliding equilibrium is a mistake, technological and organizational progress isn't necessarily immediately responsive. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 22:32 on May 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 22:24
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Perhaps judging policies based on how they affect your emotional state, as opposed to predicting their likely real world outcomes, is not a great idea. Perhaps your attempt to emulate Mr. Spock is based on a childish understanding of loving Star Trek, of all things.
|
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Perhaps your attempt to emulate Mr. Spock is based on a childish understanding of loving Star Trek, of all things. I don't know if Spock would be for keeping a society dangerous unequal for increasingly nebulous reasons.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 22:34
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Then what's the point of a living wage if you don't need a wage to live? Let me save you some time, I don't care if unemployment goes up as a result of increasing the minimum wage. It will only force us to deal with a problem we're already not dealing with (the unemployable). Feel free to concern troll.
|
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Maybe the title of the thread should be "Universal Basic Income will be a thing"
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Maybe the title of the thread should be "Universal Basic Income will be a thing" By the time you get the trillions together for a UBI, might as well go for the whole deal.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 23:15
|
|
Ervin K posted:Please tell me more about what I'm saying, I'm dying to know! rereading the first few pages of this thread after LA is just loving precious 
|
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 23:41
|
|
"
|
down with slavery posted:Let me save you some time, I don't care if unemployment goes up as a result of increasing the minimum wage. It will only force us to deal with a problem we're already not dealing with (the unemployable). Feel free to concern troll. Ah, an accelerationist.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 23:44
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Ah, an accelerationist. More that I'm skeptical there would be any significant impacts to unemployment and see no issue with raising the minimum wage slowly until we've reached a living wage. The data isn't terribly compelling with regards to employment losses due to minimum wage hikes and given that we're in a huge demand slump, putting money back in the pockets of the working poor is a good idea. Allowing companies to pay less than a living wage is unethical
|
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Ah, an accelerationist. Accelerationists want something bad to happen sooner in order for reform to occur sooner. But arguably automation of low-skill jobs is not a bad thing. It creates high-skill jobs and it opens different kinds of positions for displaced workers to fill. Technological advancement has caused countless jobs to be lost, but it has also created countless jobs of a different kind. The purpose of a minimum wage is to ensure that people who work are paid at least enough to live. The minimum wage at its current level fails at doing that, therefore it should be raised. Will this hasten the rate at which low-skill jobs are replaced by machines? Possibly. Is that a bad thing? Arguably not. I don't see you mourning the loss of lamplighters and buggy whip manufacturers.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
From the opinion page of tomorrow's New York Times.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yes, the study only suggests which jobs are susceptible to automation. It turns out the jobs most susceptible are low-wage, low-education-requirement jobs. Again, you are assuming rate of automation is a function of capital outlay and not actually a function of technological development. Not only is this not supported by the study as you continue to insist, but your logic is fundamentally flawed. The hardware is commodity and the software is infinitely reproducible. It is a function of technological advancement and social acceptance. It is going to happen when it happens, and is not being held back by "cheap labor." quote:I'm not suggesting a minimum wage for each industry, I'm suggesting a minimum wage for each locality based on the average wage in that locality. That's a lot more likely to be efficient. So ensuring poorer regions continue to stay poor? The myth that regional incomes need to maintain such a level of disparity is quite frankly disgusting and belies the intention of people to maintain a permanent underclass. gently caress you Mississippi, you are poor and dumb, and I am going to make sure you remain such! quote:How do you know the $15 dollar minimum wage maximizes benefits to the poor? Do you just feel it in your gut? Could it go higher and provide more benefits? Is there some point at which the minimum wage would become too high and actually start harming workers? How do you know where it is? Because it has been analyzed by a variety of sources and identified as a national living wage based on a wide range of criteria. Many such sources have been linked in this thread, or are easily accessible through Google. It is not like it is some great secret, and do you believe that it is simple coincidence that a variety of state and local authorities are using it as their basis for proposed legislation?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Again, you are assuming rate of automation is a function of capital outlay and not actually a function of technological development. Not only is this not supported by the study as you continue to insist, but your logic is fundamentally flawed. The hardware is commodity and the software is infinitely reproducible. It is a function of technological advancement and social acceptance. It is going to happen when it happens, and is not being held back by "cheap labor." Everyone knows that automating a McDonald's at $15/hr per employee is totally easy and will happen overnight if avaricious poors get their way. But technological development, economies of scale, and the falling cost of processor power reducing the cost to $7/hr is an absurd fantasy that will happen generations hence, if ever, so we can save all those jobs from the robot apocalypse if we just keep wages stagnant.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:More that I'm skeptical there would be any significant impacts to unemployment and see no issue with raising the minimum wage slowly until we've reached a living wage. The data isn't terribly compelling with regards to employment losses due to minimum wage hikes and given that we're in a huge demand slump, putting money back in the pockets of the working poor is a good idea. I liked your other post better. "It might cause unemployment but I don't care" is reasonable. "It won't cause unemployment but I don't actually care if it does" is less compelling. For the record if I wasn't concerned about unemployment hurting the exact people minimum wage is intended to help I think it would be a slam dunk as far as policy goes. $15 minimum wage would be absolutely fantastic if it didn't turn out to have negative side effects.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But technological development, economies of scale, and the falling cost of processor power reducing the cost to $7/hr is an absurd fantasy that will happen generations hence, if ever, so we can save all those jobs from the robot apocalypse if we just keep wages stagnant. It's also just extremely questionable to imply that we shouldn't automate jobs that can be automated. If we don't need people manning cash registers or stocking warehouses or driving delivery trucks, that's great. Employment for its own sake is a completely nonsensical concept, and even more so when the goal of keeping people employed is literally holding pay for millions of people below a living wage. Let the jobs go, and deal with that particular problem if and when it comes.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:It's also just extremely questionable to imply that we shouldn't automate jobs that can be automated. If we don't need people manning cash registers or stocking warehouses or driving delivery trucks, that's great. Employment for its own sake is a completely nonsensical concept, and even more so when the goal of keeping people employed is literally holding pay for millions of people below a living wage. Let the jobs go, and deal with that particular problem if and when it comes. Yeah, exactly. Automation and industrialization is a huge benefit to prosperity and standard of living, but I guess we should chuck out the machines and go back to making soap by hand from boiling lye so the lower classes have something to do other than turning to drink and burlesque.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
Well first, over-automation isn't economically beneficial. Second, work has been a necesary reality for all of human history and we're not prepared to deal with its large scale elimination. I'd much rather see work week regulations encouraging 35 hour weeks or less before we consciously allowed large scale unemployment.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Halting technological progress isn't going to be workable, but at the same time it isn't an argument against a higher wages is going to hurt workers just hasn't been supported. There is not only expectation of near complete or complete cost savings on the part of the firm for existing business, but also new business from wages will cause no change in employment.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 03:20
|
|
asdf32 posted:Well first, over-automation isn't economically beneficial. Work in the sense being used here has been a necessary reality for anyone for only 5% of human history, using a narrow definition of human.
|
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Second, work has been a necesary reality for all of human history and we're not prepared to deal with its large scale elimination. This sounds like some poo poo you just made up.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Well first, over-automation isn't economically beneficial. We're talking about employment, not work. The kind of employment that exists in modern society has only been a thing for a relatively short period of time, and there's no particular reason to think it's going to continue to be a thing forever (or even for the rest of our life times). More to the point, unemployment caused by automation strongly implies that those jobs are in fact not a necessary reality. If they were, it wouldn't be economically feasible to replace them with machines in the first place. Edit- I'm also interested in what you mean by over-automation. Shouldn't the market embrace automation exactly as much as is feasible? If robots are cheaper than humans paid $15/hour, why would it be inefficient to use the robots? And if it is inefficient, why not just continue to employ people at $15/hour instead? Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 03:29 on May 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Work in the sense being used here has been a necessary reality for anyone for only 5% of human history, using a narrow definition of human. Work in the sense of a need to to do things to survive/earn a living. Modern employment is an extension of that.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 03:29
|
|
asdf32 posted:Work in the sense of a need to to do things to survive/earn a living. Modern employment is an extension of that. For gently caress's sake, do you think that food will just be teleported into our mouths when we get enough robots? The need to do things to survive is distinct from the need to do so by employment.
|
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 03:33
|
|
asdf32 posted:Work in the sense of a need to to do things to survive/earn a living. Modern employment is an extension of that. hahaaha what the gently caress planet are you from
|
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Work in the sense being used here has been a necessary reality for anyone for only 5% of human history, using a narrow definition of human. But humans are designed to work, without work the serfs will grow restless!
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:25 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:For gently caress's sake, do you think that food will just be teleported into our mouths when we get enough robots? The need to do things to survive is distinct from the need to do so by employment. Describe what you're imagining in more detail before I conclude that you think moving food from the cereal box your mother purchased to your mouth is "work".
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 03:46
|
|