Yes, but with scale, they'll get better at it. They might even be able to automate large portions of it.
Also, it's a person spending their minutes on it, who might not have a better job available to them at the time.
Don't get mad because someone is willing to OFFER money for a service that YOU would find demeaning to provide. Just don't take that job. Problem solved. Sheesh.
Is you argument really that if there is something that "has been a thing for a LONG TIME" that it isn't problematic and that we shouldn't be concerned about avoiding it?
I'm seeking to improve the argument. Pretending that THIS is something new is a bad argument. If you want to assail the general category of what you consider to be demeaning jobs, then go for it.
No, you're doing far more than seeking to improve somebody else's argument. You're making your own argument, while pretending not to. This is clearly an argument: "Just don't take that job. Problem solved. Sheesh."
It's not even a very good argument, in that you're just demonstrating the willful ignorance the previous poster was pointing out.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I'm not commenting on your entire history as person, let alone going back generations. My comments are about what you wrote here, in the things I responded to. You might be Mother Teresa, but "Just don't take that job. Problem solved," demonstrates willful ignorance. And then "Sheesh" implies people are stupid for even asking, encouraging willful ignorance generally. If that's in conflict with what you believe, well, maybe you should try writing something different next time.
Drama? You called me "willfully ignorant." That's an insult.
I'll note you haven't actually engaged me in conversation here, AT ALL.
All you've done is name-called, and then criticized me.
Can't you see how the combination of a secure net, PLUS a free market where you are free to not take a job, results in people having jobs that they want?
As in, "Problem solved."
The problem is not that there are jobs that you find degrading - the problem is there's no safety net, so people HAVE TO TAKE THOSE JOBS.
Or do you want ignore the actual topic, and just poke me with a stick, some more?
No, I said a comment was an example of the willful ignorance the previous poster was pointing out. You may or may not be personally ignorant; I couldn't know. But that comment ignored the actual reality. The reality here that people are not always free to not take jobs. It is something the HN glibertarian contingent continually ignores, which is precisely the point
bendoernberg when you jumped in. The problem is not solved until it is actually solved, not just because it might be solved in some imaginary world you are partial to.
Engagement in conversation is not something you are entitled to. It is earned. You seem to think you're entitled to make facile comments and then not have those comments challenged. And when they are, you turn it into personal drama apparently so that you don't have to face dealing with what you've actually said. I have no idea why you think that makes you an appealing person to have a conversation with.
> And when they are, you turn it into personal drama apparently so that you don't have to face dealing with what you've actually said.
That was me explaining the background behind my reasoning. Including personal anecdotes. Personal anecdotes are emotional, and you call it drama instead.
You still haven't engaged the topic, other than to say that my proposed solution is "some imaginary world."
Yes, PROPOSED solutions are "imaginary worlds" until you act on them. That's how that works.
I get that you didn't like my first comment, and I agree I didn't explain my entire world-view well in 140 characters.
When I tried to go deeper into my world-view, I was met with nothing but insults and meta-discussion. I'm not interested in either.
Yes, but with scale, they'll get better at it. They might even be able to automate large portions of it.
Also, it's a person spending their minutes on it, who might not have a better job available to them at the time.
Don't get mad because someone is willing to OFFER money for a service that YOU would find demeaning to provide. Just don't take that job. Problem solved. Sheesh.
Great idea. If you're not in the gig economy, you're a turk.
Just off the top of my head, World of Warcraft gold farmers. This has been a thing for a LONG TIME.
Is you argument really that if there is something that "has been a thing for a LONG TIME" that it isn't problematic and that we shouldn't be concerned about avoiding it?
I'm seeking to improve the argument. Pretending that THIS is something new is a bad argument. If you want to assail the general category of what you consider to be demeaning jobs, then go for it.
No, you're doing far more than seeking to improve somebody else's argument. You're making your own argument, while pretending not to. This is clearly an argument: "Just don't take that job. Problem solved. Sheesh."
It's not even a very good argument, in that you're just demonstrating the willful ignorance the previous poster was pointing out.
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?
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
Here you shallowly dismiss that the problem is a problem at all:
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.
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.
"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?
Well hello, drama.
I'm not commenting on your entire history as person, let alone going back generations. My comments are about what you wrote here, in the things I responded to. You might be Mother Teresa, but "Just don't take that job. Problem solved," demonstrates willful ignorance. And then "Sheesh" implies people are stupid for even asking, encouraging willful ignorance generally. If that's in conflict with what you believe, well, maybe you should try writing something different next time.
Drama? You called me "willfully ignorant." That's an insult.
I'll note you haven't actually engaged me in conversation here, AT ALL.
All you've done is name-called, and then criticized me.
Can't you see how the combination of a secure net, PLUS a free market where you are free to not take a job, results in people having jobs that they want?
As in, "Problem solved."
The problem is not that there are jobs that you find degrading - the problem is there's no safety net, so people HAVE TO TAKE THOSE JOBS.
Or do you want ignore the actual topic, and just poke me with a stick, some more?
No, I said a comment was an example of the willful ignorance the previous poster was pointing out. You may or may not be personally ignorant; I couldn't know. But that comment ignored the actual reality. The reality here that people are not always free to not take jobs. It is something the HN glibertarian contingent continually ignores, which is precisely the point bendoernberg when you jumped in. The problem is not solved until it is actually solved, not just because it might be solved in some imaginary world you are partial to.
Engagement in conversation is not something you are entitled to. It is earned. You seem to think you're entitled to make facile comments and then not have those comments challenged. And when they are, you turn it into personal drama apparently so that you don't have to face dealing with what you've actually said. I have no idea why you think that makes you an appealing person to have a conversation with.
> And when they are, you turn it into personal drama apparently so that you don't have to face dealing with what you've actually said.
That was me explaining the background behind my reasoning. Including personal anecdotes. Personal anecdotes are emotional, and you call it drama instead.
You still haven't engaged the topic, other than to say that my proposed solution is "some imaginary world."
Yes, PROPOSED solutions are "imaginary worlds" until you act on them. That's how that works.
I get that you didn't like my first comment, and I agree I didn't explain my entire world-view well in 140 characters.
When I tried to go deeper into my world-view, I was met with nothing but insults and meta-discussion. I'm not interested in either.
Yes, informal 'working for gold' has happened in quite a few MMOs where the grind is required to play.
However, many MMOs (Eve excluded) usually ban or restrict selling gold for USD.
mTurk and the up coming gig economy are legal ways to extract money right now, as a IT1099