Show newer

@thor Yea that was before there was much of a network at all.. I came in before AP but after gnu social was around for a bit... I did tinker with a gnu social instances but it was VERY short lived.

@thor yea there were quite a few that existed before AP... Actually mastodon wasnt originally AP. When I joined we were still using ostatus I think.

@thor You are misremembering, we started as forking off mastodon and I was originally on mastodon instances.

@thor We were here when it all started :) One of the older instances yea.

@rmerriam

Sure, we agree there are two bugs, one is that they can work but not make enough to live well, the other cant work at all.. sure those two bugs exist, agreed.

Minimum wage fixes neither of those bugs.. it ensures the people who cant work at all continue to not work, but it also ensures the people who cant make a living wage now get fired since its illegal to continue to employ them at the value they deserve... so now you made things worse, no bugs fixed.

@trinsec

@rmerriam

And you arent paying attention... thats not what happens..

You have a group of people not making enough to live... You enact minimum wage and cause those people to go from making not-enough to 0.

You solved nothing, you probably killed a bunch of people. You made nothing better.

@trinsec

@olives As far as classical high level languages go I like it more than most partly due to the freedom it allows.

That said it has horrible handling of immutability. Sadly many languages handle that poorly.

@rmerriam

You can buy as many politicians as they want, those voting simply have the choice not to vote for anyone they buy... because the voters have the real power.

@trinsec

@rmerriam @trinsec

I am entierly serious, and not stirring a pot.

If you think taking away what little money someone makes because it "isnt enough" is somehow solving a problem then I hate to tell you but it sounds like your the one who isnt serious here.

You dont solve the problem of people making a less than living wage by taking away what money they make. That should be obvious.

@rmerriam

No matter how much a business donates to a super pac they still cant dictate even a single vote.. the tohousands of employees votes have far more power than ANY amount of money spent on a super pac.. .which by the way is something people can do too (invest tons of money into super pacs)... so very poor argument.

@trinsec

@rmerriam @trinsec

"Solving" the fact that people dont have a living wage by making it illegal for them to have their less-than-living-wage job and essentially firing them leaving them with less than they had before.. is NOT solving anything.

@rmerriam

It literally has no effect other than to cause all the people who are making less than a minimum wage and barely able to feed themselves into people who now have no job at all and are in a much worse position, starving, meanwhile more educated/skilled people have replaced their job, people who would have made a living wage regardless.

No it doesnt fix a problem.. it makes a problem much much worse and fixes nothing.

@trinsec

@freemo @trinsec There are some jobs that are incredibly hard to automate. Strawberry growers have been funding research into how to automate picking strawberries since the 1980's. It is hard labor intensive work and the first person who can do it successfully will be a billionaire by the end of the year. In spire of directed research and huge potential profits, "Pick the red fruit gently without damaging the plant or the green fruit." Is still not even close to reality.

@antares

There are plenty of jobs which may be a decade or two out before they will be automated.. it will take time and its a process.. but its a very real future we are moving towards quickly.

@trinsec

@freemo @trinsec @jimvernon

I more or less agree with freemo (with some big caveats), but I want to add some context and potential solutions:

Assume that each job has a set of requirements that we'll call {R}, and for each unique {R} there exists a real value produced when a person that meets those requirements is employed there, called V. Thus, for the set of all jobs {J} there exists the set of all requirements for all jobs {{R},{R},{R},...} and values produced {V}, and people are compensated for a portion of V they provide to the company by doing the work.

If we assume that requirements are correlated to someone's intelligence (again, *assume* is the key word), even if we also assume that jobs are distributed IDENTICALLY to the intelligence distribution, freemo has a point.

Namely, there may exist jobs with values of V that fall below the minimum wage, M. If this is the case, those jobs must be collected and extended such that their values V > M; however, this necessarily expands the set of requirements for these now hybridized jobs (or {R1}+{R2} => {R1+R2} for all jobs where V<M).

Thus, if the minimum wage is raised too high (or alternatively, there are too many applicants with insufficient requirements for the lower end of the requirements distribution), we risk creating a class of unemployable people as a vertical line moves left to right along the bell curve chopping the lower end off completely. A great example of this in the intelligence space was what the US discovered when they relaxed their IQ requirements when training soldiers for the Vietnam war, and why those IQ requirements were reinstated. Unfortunately, that means that 10%(not sure of the actual stat here, but I think it's close) of the populace in the US is "not fit for military duty", and in that case, there are vanishingly few jobs for which they will provide value and thus be employable.

Now, there are a lot of assumptions baked in here, and I don't think this outcome is the *right* one. There are a lot of screwy things going on right now with the asinine "'growth' at all costs" mentality (and the private equity firms that accompany it) currently plaguing our economy and as a result vulnerable people are marginalized. I am of the mind that "Welfare Capitalism" that was pioneered by early GE and other US companies can and should become the more popular method of economic growth and stability, as it was what provided the conditions of the 50s and 60s, and that everyone should be able to find work. With that being said, in our current economic environment, and without substantial changes to it, I have to reluctantly agree with freemo.

@VoxDei

> But from the workers' point of view, whether the company is gouging its customers by price fixing is irrelevant to how it treats its staff.

No its very relevant, because price fixing isnt just something they can do on products but its something they can do on wages as well. Therein lies the problem, it is **very** relevant.

@trinsec

@voidabyss

> It seems to me that reinventing a lean and work condition oriented union is more feasible then “fixing the government”.

No because you still wind up with a broken government that wont represent the best interests of the people and unions will, at best, stem the tide of the damage the government will cause.

> Unions played a major role in the past 60s/70s pushing for work condition reforms that many are enjoying today and especially uplifting the manual labor class from poverty to middle income.

Unions played a role trying to stem the tide of a broken government, no doubt. But they are still a hack to try to compensate for building a government that represents the people and far from a proper solution.

Show older
CleverLibre Social

CleverLibre Social is an inclusive social instance for open discussion, learning, and community.
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.