🔥 Popular | Latest

Save
mswyrr: mysharona1987: Like, you want janitors and McDonald fast food workers and cleaners. You just don’t want them to make a liveable wage and have healthcare and be treated like proper human beings.   ultimately the people at the top want to replace them with machines. factory jobs have been lost to automation as well as companies moving abroad. they’re trying to get rid of truck drivers and other people who drive people/goods around. they want to replace employees at McDonalds. there’s serious articles about it and also “cute” articles about delivery robots and I think: that’s a working class job gone. one that was already fucking pathetic bc of how unfairly people who drive delivery are treated. but soon (within 5-10 years?) those jobs will just be gone. and idk what people are supposed to do at that point… just be “polite” and shuffle off and die in a corner somewhere because there’s simply not enough higher status/paying jobs to go around and they never had the educational or other opportunities to even compete for those jobs anyway? i suppose plumbers and electricians and some forms of maintenance will be necessary for a few decades until AI can think as creatively as humans but at some point we have to decide whether human lives have inherent worth apart from their worth under capitalism. and we, in the US, do not currently live in a society that believes they do. : Existential Comics @existentialcoms Follow When you blame a poor person for not getting a better job, you accept that while their job is necessary, whoever does it should be poor. RETWEETS LIKES 2,129 3,183 9:22 AM - 21 Apr 2017 342.1K 3.2K mswyrr: mysharona1987: Like, you want janitors and McDonald fast food workers and cleaners. You just don’t want them to make a liveable wage and have healthcare and be treated like proper human beings.   ultimately the people at the top want to replace them with machines. factory jobs have been lost to automation as well as companies moving abroad. they’re trying to get rid of truck drivers and other people who drive people/goods around. they want to replace employees at McDonalds. there’s serious articles about it and also “cute” articles about delivery robots and I think: that’s a working class job gone. one that was already fucking pathetic bc of how unfairly people who drive delivery are treated. but soon (within 5-10 years?) those jobs will just be gone. and idk what people are supposed to do at that point… just be “polite” and shuffle off and die in a corner somewhere because there’s simply not enough higher status/paying jobs to go around and they never had the educational or other opportunities to even compete for those jobs anyway? i suppose plumbers and electricians and some forms of maintenance will be necessary for a few decades until AI can think as creatively as humans but at some point we have to decide whether human lives have inherent worth apart from their worth under capitalism. and we, in the US, do not currently live in a society that believes they do.
Save
<p><a href="https://triggeredmedia.tumblr.com/post/169276755942/dedicating-ruckus-rtrixie-triggeredmedia" class="tumblr_blog">triggeredmedia</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="https://dedicating-ruckus.tumblr.com/post/169276064463/rtrixie-triggeredmedia-its-almost-as-if" class="tumblr_blog">dedicating-ruckus</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="http://rtrixie.tumblr.com/post/169275885979/triggeredmedia-its-almost-as-if-schools-push" class="tumblr_blog">rtrixie</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://triggeredmedia.tumblr.com/post/169270049767/its-almost-as-if-schools-push-and-ideology-that" class="tumblr_blog">triggeredmedia</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>It’s almost as if schools push and ideology that benefits schools. </p></blockquote> <p>Trades are a valid option and there’s absolutely no shame in admitting that you can’t afford college. </p> </blockquote> <p style="">The modern push of College For All has only really served to bankrupt a lot of people who didn’t need it, and water down the degree for those who did.<br/></p> </blockquote><p>I honestly believe that’s part of the agenda of the left. Their entire platform is around the government taking care of you. </p><p>“You should do what you want. If that’s feminist dance study so be it. Oh you can’t take care of your family now? Proof we need more government. ”</p><p>There are over 6 million open jobs right now in this country. Two-thirds of jobs in this country don’t require any sort of degree. </p><p>This is where left is usually respond with “but automation” as proof that there’s not going to be any jobs. </p><p>That’s exactly what they said when cars and were invented in horse carriage and farming was changed.</p><p>That’s what they said when computers replace most office workers.</p><p>We have more jobs now with more technology and more automation. They’re just different jobs. </p></blockquote> <p>They obviously pushed it to funnel more money into the money pit that is student loans. I need a degree for the things I want to do, but I wish I had gone about it a different way. Right now my sister is taking part high school classes and part cosmetology classes at a community college. By the time she goes to a “real college” she should be able to go as a junior and save tons of money. Kids if you’re still in high school listen to me: don’t let anybody tell you you absolutely have to go to a four-year school you can’t afford just to be successful. Don’t let anybody talk you into taking out $50,000+ in loans that you’ll never be able to pay back. Consider your options, look at community college offerings and dual enrollment and online credits. We have more ways than ever to get a well-rounded education and qualifications for the things we need to do.</p>: October 19 at 11:11ame In highschool I wonder why they pushed college on us so hard instead of trades? They didn't tell me union plumbers can make $1,600 a week with no OT and NO DEGREE....or that truck drivers can make 6 bands a week if they buy their own truck w/NO DEGREE? OR that traveling welders can make 100k a year with NO DEGREE.they made it seem like college was the only way to be successful Like Comment Share nd 352 others 495 Shares I'm a weld Inspector, traveling inspectors can make 6 figures easy Oct 19 at 11:14am Love 2 Reply Delete plied- 3 replies That's awesome bro I'm a truck driver and we can make 6 figures as well with the right company. I just wonder why they ain't tell me about this shit in highschool. They made it seem like college was the only way Oct 19 at 11:16am Edited Like 3 Reply More <p><a href="https://triggeredmedia.tumblr.com/post/169276755942/dedicating-ruckus-rtrixie-triggeredmedia" class="tumblr_blog">triggeredmedia</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="https://dedicating-ruckus.tumblr.com/post/169276064463/rtrixie-triggeredmedia-its-almost-as-if" class="tumblr_blog">dedicating-ruckus</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="http://rtrixie.tumblr.com/post/169275885979/triggeredmedia-its-almost-as-if-schools-push" class="tumblr_blog">rtrixie</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://triggeredmedia.tumblr.com/post/169270049767/its-almost-as-if-schools-push-and-ideology-that" class="tumblr_blog">triggeredmedia</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>It’s almost as if schools push and ideology that benefits schools. </p></blockquote> <p>Trades are a valid option and there’s absolutely no shame in admitting that you can’t afford college. </p> </blockquote> <p style="">The modern push of College For All has only really served to bankrupt a lot of people who didn’t need it, and water down the degree for those who did.<br/></p> </blockquote><p>I honestly believe that’s part of the agenda of the left. Their entire platform is around the government taking care of you. </p><p>“You should do what you want. If that’s feminist dance study so be it. Oh you can’t take care of your family now? Proof we need more government. ”</p><p>There are over 6 million open jobs right now in this country. Two-thirds of jobs in this country don’t require any sort of degree. </p><p>This is where left is usually respond with “but automation” as proof that there’s not going to be any jobs. </p><p>That’s exactly what they said when cars and were invented in horse carriage and farming was changed.</p><p>That’s what they said when computers replace most office workers.</p><p>We have more jobs now with more technology and more automation. They’re just different jobs. </p></blockquote> <p>They obviously pushed it to funnel more money into the money pit that is student loans. I need a degree for the things I want to do, but I wish I had gone about it a different way. Right now my sister is taking part high school classes and part cosmetology classes at a community college. By the time she goes to a “real college” she should be able to go as a junior and save tons of money. Kids if you’re still in high school listen to me: don’t let anybody tell you you absolutely have to go to a four-year school you can’t afford just to be successful. Don’t let anybody talk you into taking out $50,000+ in loans that you’ll never be able to pay back. Consider your options, look at community college offerings and dual enrollment and online credits. We have more ways than ever to get a well-rounded education and qualifications for the things we need to do.</p>
Save
<p><a href="http://eruhamster.tumblr.com/post/169093714870/thetakubooty-libertarirynn-hst3000" class="tumblr_blog">eruhamster</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="http://thetakubooty.tumblr.com/post/169093033392/libertarirynn-hst3000-libertarirynn-this" class="tumblr_blog">thetakubooty</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/169092911679/hst3000-libertarirynn-this-is-a-total-load" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://hst3000.tumblr.com/post/169092756302/libertarirynn-this-is-a-total-load-from-beginning" class="tumblr_blog">hst3000</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/169092461069/this-is-a-total-load-from-beginning-to-end-first" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>This is a total load from beginning to end. First off I’m curious where you did your research because mine showed that Cratchit made about $90 a week or $4,680 a year in today’s money. That’s not even close to your number. Secondly, if minimum wage is so necessary to prevent employers from exploiting their workers, then why don’t all companies pay minimum wage?</p></blockquote> <p>A minor point on the conversion. Christmas Carol is far enough back that inflation calculations can get a bit hairy. Some things have been reduced in price dramatically due to automation and industrialization, while others have gotten way more expensive due to (funnily enough) rising labor costs. There’s about five different ways to calculate conversion, and none if them are broadly applicable to global statements.</p> </blockquote> <p>Oh definitely. Even in my calculations it wasn’t too clean-cut. Plus the modern English shilling is not the same as the shilling in 1843. I don’t want to sound like a cynic and suggest that this person just pulled a random number out of their ass without caring whether not it was accurate because they wanted to make a point but…</p> </blockquote> <p>what was their point?</p> </blockquote> <p>Their point was that Bob Cratchit made next to nothing working for Scrooge as it was, and if he got paid more than minimum wage workers today, then we have something very wrong with our society. Which isn’t necessarily wrong.</p> <p>Also <a class="tumblelog" href="https://tmblr.co/mZHrjydhp9oUbxMGBDJA8rw">@libertarirynn</a> you’re really asking why minimum wage is necessary? Of course if everyone paid the same minimum wage, then they wouldn’t get people who cared about their jobs and it’d be harder to find skilled workers– both because existing skilled workers would rather work a minimum wage job where they could do less, and because no one would want to bother to learn trades and skills because they’ll get paid the same shit amount anyway. </p> <p>Minimum wage is necessary to stop people from taking advantage of unskilled labor. Factory work and the like. Do you know what life was like for people before minimum wage was a thing? People were making so little that essentially all they did was work all day, and child labor was popular because the entire family needed to work to make ends meet– mother, father, and children. It was necessary to give people a better standard of living, along with abolishing child labor and making sure people did not end up working 12 hours a day 6, sometimes 7 days a week. Do you not know what Industrial Revolution America was like, before regulations? Child labor, people just asking to ONLY work 40 hours a week, extreme poverty, a lack of regulations that caused tragedies like the fire at the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire">Triangle Shirtwaist Factory,</a> etc. </p> <p>And before you ask why it’s necessary today now that we’ve long since gotten rid of things like child labor laws… It’s for all the people who lose their jobs or are single mothers and are forced to work multiple part time jobs in order to feed their children, because so many jobs that do not pay minimum wage today require so much experience and a degree. Maybe if employers were less selfish with hiring practices and gave more people jobs when they needed them and made it so only teenagers had to work minimum wage, we’d be alright. But that’s not how the world is.</p> </blockquote> <blockquote><p>Their point was that Bob Cratchit made next to nothing working for Scrooge as it was, and if he got paid more than minimum wage workers today, then we have something very wrong with our society. Which isn’t necessarily wrong.</p></blockquote> Except that it is wrong, because as I just pointed out Bob Crachit was making much, much less than minimum wage. <blockquote><p>Also @libertarirynn you’re really asking why minimum wage is necessary?</p></blockquote> Yep. And if you haven’t heard me do it before you must be new here. <blockquote>Of course if everyone paid the same minimum wage, then they wouldn’t get people who cared about their jobs and it’d be harder to find skilled workers– both because existing skilled workers would rather work a minimum wage job where they could do less, and because no one would want to bother to learn trades and skills because they’ll get paid the same shit amount anyway.</blockquote> Wow I literally don’t know what to say. You pointed out the exact reasons the imposition of a minimum wage is unnecessary. Companies are naturally going to offer more if they think it will give them more skilled workers. <blockquote><p>Minimum wage is necessary to stop people from taking advantage of unskilled labor. Factory work and the like. Do you know what life was like for people before minimum wage was a thing? People were making so little that essentially all they did was work all day, and child labor was popular because the entire family needed to work to make ends meet– mother, father, and children. It was necessary to give people a better standard of living, along with abolishing child labor and making sure people did not end up working 12 hours a day 6, sometimes 7 days a week. Do you not know what Industrial Revolution America was like, before regulations? Child labor, people just asking to ONLY work 40 hours a week, extreme poverty, a lack of regulations that caused tragedies like the fire at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, etc.</p></blockquote> Most of that has very little to do with minimum wage, nor is it particularly relevant in modernized industry. <blockquote><p>And before you ask why it’s necessary today now that we’ve long since gotten rid of things like child labor laws… It’s for all the people who lose their jobs or are single mothers and are forced to work multiple part time jobs in order to feed their children, because so many jobs that do not pay minimum wage today require so much experience and a degree. Maybe if employers were less selfish with hiring practices and gave more people jobs when they needed them and made it so only teenagers had to work minimum wage, we’d be alright. But that’s not how the world is.</p></blockquote> We can’t just magically decide to skill is worth more money because of sob stories about single mothers. I know many a single mother who did things like go to night classes to earn a degree or even just learn particular skills to make themselves a valuable employee worth more than minimum wage. And again, most low skill jobs *do* pay above minimum wage, especially to valuable workers. I’ve only been paid minimum wage once in my life, and I’ve worked several low skill jobs. Do you know why this is? Because those jobs are dime a dozen. Wendy’s knows if they pay you just minimum wage and McDonald’s offers you a dollar more, you go work at McDonald’s. Companies being able to set their wages drives competition and therefore wages up. Skill is a commodity to be paid for just like anything else. Flipping burgers simply is not worth $15 an hour and emotional appeals involving child factory workers from 1928 will not change that. I encourage you to check my minimum wage tag for more in-depth information. <a href="https://tmblr.co/mhaiNKeZ_RViwScgQtvf7CQ">@redbloodedamerica</a> <a href="https://tmblr.co/mIiX85InXZ_5gFO1XlH6zKA">@libertybill</a> <a href="https://tmblr.co/m5-xacQqloOb-oZ4F4dhAIA">@libertarian-lady</a>: Amy Renee Wasney Monday at 9:31 PM While watching A Christmas Carol tonight, my attention was caught by Bob Cratchit's salary. He makes "15 bob a week." I got curious and looked into inflation and conversion to American money, and if A Christmas Carol happened this year, Bob Cratchit would be making $27,574 per year in American money. If someone works 40 hours a week at the current federal minimum wage, they'll make $15,080. So Bob Cratchit, the epitome of poverty, makes $12,494 more than minimum wage workers (full time) each year. And yet we have people saying minimum wage is fine where it's at. <p><a href="http://eruhamster.tumblr.com/post/169093714870/thetakubooty-libertarirynn-hst3000" class="tumblr_blog">eruhamster</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="http://thetakubooty.tumblr.com/post/169093033392/libertarirynn-hst3000-libertarirynn-this" class="tumblr_blog">thetakubooty</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/169092911679/hst3000-libertarirynn-this-is-a-total-load" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://hst3000.tumblr.com/post/169092756302/libertarirynn-this-is-a-total-load-from-beginning" class="tumblr_blog">hst3000</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/169092461069/this-is-a-total-load-from-beginning-to-end-first" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>This is a total load from beginning to end. First off I’m curious where you did your research because mine showed that Cratchit made about $90 a week or $4,680 a year in today’s money. That’s not even close to your number. Secondly, if minimum wage is so necessary to prevent employers from exploiting their workers, then why don’t all companies pay minimum wage?</p></blockquote> <p>A minor point on the conversion. Christmas Carol is far enough back that inflation calculations can get a bit hairy. Some things have been reduced in price dramatically due to automation and industrialization, while others have gotten way more expensive due to (funnily enough) rising labor costs. There’s about five different ways to calculate conversion, and none if them are broadly applicable to global statements.</p> </blockquote> <p>Oh definitely. Even in my calculations it wasn’t too clean-cut. Plus the modern English shilling is not the same as the shilling in 1843. I don’t want to sound like a cynic and suggest that this person just pulled a random number out of their ass without caring whether not it was accurate because they wanted to make a point but…</p> </blockquote> <p>what was their point?</p> </blockquote> <p>Their point was that Bob Cratchit made next to nothing working for Scrooge as it was, and if he got paid more than minimum wage workers today, then we have something very wrong with our society. Which isn’t necessarily wrong.</p> <p>Also <a class="tumblelog" href="https://tmblr.co/mZHrjydhp9oUbxMGBDJA8rw">@libertarirynn</a> you’re really asking why minimum wage is necessary? Of course if everyone paid the same minimum wage, then they wouldn’t get people who cared about their jobs and it’d be harder to find skilled workers– both because existing skilled workers would rather work a minimum wage job where they could do less, and because no one would want to bother to learn trades and skills because they’ll get paid the same shit amount anyway. </p> <p>Minimum wage is necessary to stop people from taking advantage of unskilled labor. Factory work and the like. Do you know what life was like for people before minimum wage was a thing? People were making so little that essentially all they did was work all day, and child labor was popular because the entire family needed to work to make ends meet– mother, father, and children. It was necessary to give people a better standard of living, along with abolishing child labor and making sure people did not end up working 12 hours a day 6, sometimes 7 days a week. Do you not know what Industrial Revolution America was like, before regulations? Child labor, people just asking to ONLY work 40 hours a week, extreme poverty, a lack of regulations that caused tragedies like the fire at the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire">Triangle Shirtwaist Factory,</a> etc. </p> <p>And before you ask why it’s necessary today now that we’ve long since gotten rid of things like child labor laws… It’s for all the people who lose their jobs or are single mothers and are forced to work multiple part time jobs in order to feed their children, because so many jobs that do not pay minimum wage today require so much experience and a degree. Maybe if employers were less selfish with hiring practices and gave more people jobs when they needed them and made it so only teenagers had to work minimum wage, we’d be alright. But that’s not how the world is.</p> </blockquote> <blockquote><p>Their point was that Bob Cratchit made next to nothing working for Scrooge as it was, and if he got paid more than minimum wage workers today, then we have something very wrong with our society. Which isn’t necessarily wrong.</p></blockquote> Except that it is wrong, because as I just pointed out Bob Crachit was making much, much less than minimum wage. <blockquote><p>Also @libertarirynn you’re really asking why minimum wage is necessary?</p></blockquote> Yep. And if you haven’t heard me do it before you must be new here. <blockquote>Of course if everyone paid the same minimum wage, then they wouldn’t get people who cared about their jobs and it’d be harder to find skilled workers– both because existing skilled workers would rather work a minimum wage job where they could do less, and because no one would want to bother to learn trades and skills because they’ll get paid the same shit amount anyway.</blockquote> Wow I literally don’t know what to say. You pointed out the exact reasons the imposition of a minimum wage is unnecessary. Companies are naturally going to offer more if they think it will give them more skilled workers. <blockquote><p>Minimum wage is necessary to stop people from taking advantage of unskilled labor. Factory work and the like. Do you know what life was like for people before minimum wage was a thing? People were making so little that essentially all they did was work all day, and child labor was popular because the entire family needed to work to make ends meet– mother, father, and children. It was necessary to give people a better standard of living, along with abolishing child labor and making sure people did not end up working 12 hours a day 6, sometimes 7 days a week. Do you not know what Industrial Revolution America was like, before regulations? Child labor, people just asking to ONLY work 40 hours a week, extreme poverty, a lack of regulations that caused tragedies like the fire at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, etc.</p></blockquote> Most of that has very little to do with minimum wage, nor is it particularly relevant in modernized industry. <blockquote><p>And before you ask why it’s necessary today now that we’ve long since gotten rid of things like child labor laws… It’s for all the people who lose their jobs or are single mothers and are forced to work multiple part time jobs in order to feed their children, because so many jobs that do not pay minimum wage today require so much experience and a degree. Maybe if employers were less selfish with hiring practices and gave more people jobs when they needed them and made it so only teenagers had to work minimum wage, we’d be alright. But that’s not how the world is.</p></blockquote> We can’t just magically decide to skill is worth more money because of sob stories about single mothers. I know many a single mother who did things like go to night classes to earn a degree or even just learn particular skills to make themselves a valuable employee worth more than minimum wage. And again, most low skill jobs *do* pay above minimum wage, especially to valuable workers. I’ve only been paid minimum wage once in my life, and I’ve worked several low skill jobs. Do you know why this is? Because those jobs are dime a dozen. Wendy’s knows if they pay you just minimum wage and McDonald’s offers you a dollar more, you go work at McDonald’s. Companies being able to set their wages drives competition and therefore wages up. Skill is a commodity to be paid for just like anything else. Flipping burgers simply is not worth $15 an hour and emotional appeals involving child factory workers from 1928 will not change that. I encourage you to check my minimum wage tag for more in-depth information. <a href="https://tmblr.co/mhaiNKeZ_RViwScgQtvf7CQ">@redbloodedamerica</a> <a href="https://tmblr.co/mIiX85InXZ_5gFO1XlH6zKA">@libertybill</a> <a href="https://tmblr.co/m5-xacQqloOb-oZ4F4dhAIA">@libertarian-lady</a>
Save
<p><a href="https://hst3000.tumblr.com/post/169092756302/libertarirynn-this-is-a-total-load-from-beginning" class="tumblr_blog">hst3000</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/169092461069/this-is-a-total-load-from-beginning-to-end-first" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p><blockquote><p>This is a total load from beginning to end. First off I’m curious where you did your research because mine showed that Cratchit made about $90 a week or $4,680 a year in today’s money. That’s not even close to your number. Secondly, if minimum wage is so necessary to prevent employers from exploiting their workers, then why don’t all companies pay minimum wage?</p></blockquote> <p>A minor point on the conversion. Christmas Carol is far enough back that inflation calculations can get a bit hairy. Some things have been reduced in price dramatically due to automation and industrialization, while others have gotten way more expensive due to (funnily enough) rising labor costs. There’s about five different ways to calculate conversion, and none if them are broadly applicable to global statements.</p></blockquote> <p>Oh definitely. Even in my calculations it wasn’t too clean-cut. Plus the modern English shilling is not the same as the shilling in 1843. I don’t want to sound like a cynic and suggest that this person just pulled a random number out of their ass without caring whether not it was accurate because they wanted to make a point but…</p>: Amy Renee Wasney Monday at 9:31 PM While watching A Christmas Carol tonight, my attention was caught by Bob Cratchit's salary. He makes "15 bob a week." I got curious and looked into inflation and conversion to American money, and if A Christmas Carol happened this year, Bob Cratchit would be making $27,574 per year in American money. If someone works 40 hours a week at the current federal minimum wage, they'll make $15,080. So Bob Cratchit, the epitome of poverty, makes $12,494 more than minimum wage workers (full time) each year. And yet we have people saying minimum wage is fine where it's at. <p><a href="https://hst3000.tumblr.com/post/169092756302/libertarirynn-this-is-a-total-load-from-beginning" class="tumblr_blog">hst3000</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/169092461069/this-is-a-total-load-from-beginning-to-end-first" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p><blockquote><p>This is a total load from beginning to end. First off I’m curious where you did your research because mine showed that Cratchit made about $90 a week or $4,680 a year in today’s money. That’s not even close to your number. Secondly, if minimum wage is so necessary to prevent employers from exploiting their workers, then why don’t all companies pay minimum wage?</p></blockquote> <p>A minor point on the conversion. Christmas Carol is far enough back that inflation calculations can get a bit hairy. Some things have been reduced in price dramatically due to automation and industrialization, while others have gotten way more expensive due to (funnily enough) rising labor costs. There’s about five different ways to calculate conversion, and none if them are broadly applicable to global statements.</p></blockquote> <p>Oh definitely. Even in my calculations it wasn’t too clean-cut. Plus the modern English shilling is not the same as the shilling in 1843. I don’t want to sound like a cynic and suggest that this person just pulled a random number out of their ass without caring whether not it was accurate because they wanted to make a point but…</p>
Save
c-bassmeow: cracked-pearl-78: c-bassmeow: Shit Luddites have been making this claim since the Industrial Revolution and they are no closer to being true. While you are historically correct, many economists, tech experts (people who work with tech who are far from luddites), and even CEO’s of tech companies believe that with the increasing automation  of jobs, many jobs will go to machines and there will be a great, massive reduction in jobs. Economists both from the left and right think this is to be true since it’s already happening just not to a large extent YET. Even the Bureau of labor statistics projects massive job loss due to human jobs becoming obsolete because technological changes that make it more efficient to replace humans with machines/computers since it will be cheaper, less error, and more efficient to replace humans since machines do not need to rest, do not have families, can be worked to their extreme, and can be programmed to do something correctly all the time. Moreover with the prospect of artificial intelligence which is being invested heavily, the change might manifest more rapidly.  One remedy for this from some economists from both the left and right is to enact a universal basic income. But while I appreciate your skepticism, which is very healthy because i too have a disdain for predictions with no basis in reality or that sound alarmist- to my knowledge there seems to be a slow, growing consensus from many fields that technological progress will replace many many human jobs the extent to which they will replace them is obviously debatable but the fact that they will be replaced to some degree that affects us seems to not be. I’m sorry I can’t cite sources I’m on my phone at the moment. Also,  throughout history technological progress has always replaced jobs.  There are less shoemakers now, farmers, cashiers, and countless other positions due to technological progress. Historically though,  we have been able to replace these jobs with new ones created through social change, technological change, and other factors but I and many think that we have hit a special time in history where technology will simply take over many more jobs than we can replace.  Technological progress is so advanced now that many products that we had to buy separately are now consolidated into one (an iphone is a fax machine, a phone, a computer, a camera, a tv, etc) and at times less people are needed in the aggregate to make these products.   Lastly, and this is just semantics,  I do believe that many techno-optimists believe technological progress automatically means “good” because we associate the word technology with human advancement and because “progress” is  a word that assumes benevolence, but this is not the case. Technological and scientific progress are not inherently good.  I am no luddite and I am a lover of science BUT science and technological advancement are sometimes removed and unaware of the unintended consequences created by their advancement since we rarely know all the social, economic, political, ramifications brought by said technology/scientific discoveries at the time of their creation and birth. So to assume everything will be a positive step forward is a naive assumption not supported by data but simply a subjective feeling of comfort and happiness because tech progress is being made. So i am no luddite, but I do think there is cause this time to be healthily afraid of what is to come.  A capitalist system has historically relied on humans but when those who own the means of production switch to a more inexpensive, rational, hard working, and anti-error prone substitute …. then what happens? It has never been done before so to assume you can use history as a guide (which is usually a very intelligent move) is somewhat misguided for what is to come has never happened before.  : Lee Fang @lhfang When robotics/driverless cars replace 1/3 jobs in America, and the political establishment does nothing, 2016 anger will look minuscule. 11/5/16, 10:03 PM 287 RETWEETS 497 LIKES c-bassmeow: cracked-pearl-78: c-bassmeow: Shit Luddites have been making this claim since the Industrial Revolution and they are no closer to being true. While you are historically correct, many economists, tech experts (people who work with tech who are far from luddites), and even CEO’s of tech companies believe that with the increasing automation  of jobs, many jobs will go to machines and there will be a great, massive reduction in jobs. Economists both from the left and right think this is to be true since it’s already happening just not to a large extent YET. Even the Bureau of labor statistics projects massive job loss due to human jobs becoming obsolete because technological changes that make it more efficient to replace humans with machines/computers since it will be cheaper, less error, and more efficient to replace humans since machines do not need to rest, do not have families, can be worked to their extreme, and can be programmed to do something correctly all the time. Moreover with the prospect of artificial intelligence which is being invested heavily, the change might manifest more rapidly.  One remedy for this from some economists from both the left and right is to enact a universal basic income. But while I appreciate your skepticism, which is very healthy because i too have a disdain for predictions with no basis in reality or that sound alarmist- to my knowledge there seems to be a slow, growing consensus from many fields that technological progress will replace many many human jobs the extent to which they will replace them is obviously debatable but the fact that they will be replaced to some degree that affects us seems to not be. I’m sorry I can’t cite sources I’m on my phone at the moment. Also,  throughout history technological progress has always replaced jobs.  There are less shoemakers now, farmers, cashiers, and countless other positions due to technological progress. Historically though,  we have been able to replace these jobs with new ones created through social change, technological change, and other factors but I and many think that we have hit a special time in history where technology will simply take over many more jobs than we can replace.  Technological progress is so advanced now that many products that we had to buy separately are now consolidated into one (an iphone is a fax machine, a phone, a computer, a camera, a tv, etc) and at times less people are needed in the aggregate to make these products.   Lastly, and this is just semantics,  I do believe that many techno-optimists believe technological progress automatically means “good” because we associate the word technology with human advancement and because “progress” is  a word that assumes benevolence, but this is not the case. Technological and scientific progress are not inherently good.  I am no luddite and I am a lover of science BUT science and technological advancement are sometimes removed and unaware of the unintended consequences created by their advancement since we rarely know all the social, economic, political, ramifications brought by said technology/scientific discoveries at the time of their creation and birth. So to assume everything will be a positive step forward is a naive assumption not supported by data but simply a subjective feeling of comfort and happiness because tech progress is being made. So i am no luddite, but I do think there is cause this time to be healthily afraid of what is to come.  A capitalist system has historically relied on humans but when those who own the means of production switch to a more inexpensive, rational, hard working, and anti-error prone substitute …. then what happens? It has never been done before so to assume you can use history as a guide (which is usually a very intelligent move) is somewhat misguided for what is to come has never happened before. 
Save
cracked-pearl-78: c-bassmeow: Shit Luddites have been making this claim since the Industrial Revolution and they are no closer to being true. While you are historically correct, many economists, tech experts (people who work with tech who are far from luddites), and even CEO’s of tech companies believe that with the increasing automation  of jobs, many jobs will go to machines and there will be a great, massive reduction in jobs. Economists both from the left and right think this is to be true since it’s already happening just not to a large extent YET. Even the Bureau of labor statistics projects massive job loss due to human jobs becoming obsolete because technological changes that make it more efficient to replace humans with machines/computers since it will be cheaper, less error, and more efficient to replace humans since machines do not need to rest, do not have families, can be worked to their extreme, and can be programmed to do something correctly all the time. Moreover with the prospect of artificial intelligence which is being invested heavily, the change might manifest more rapidly. One remedy for this from some economists from both the left and right is to enact a universal basic income. But while I appreciate your skepticism, which is very healthy because i too have a disdain for predictions with no basis in reality or that sound alarmist- to my knowledge there seems to be a slow, growing consensus from many fields that technological progress will replace many many human jobs the extent to which they will replace them is obviously debatable but the fact that they will be replaced to some degree that affects us seems to not be. I’m sorry I can’t cite sources I’m on my phone at the moment.Also,  throughout history technological progress has always replaced jobs.  There are less shoemakers now, farmers, cashiers, and countless other positions due to technological progress. Historically though,  we have been able to replace these jobs with new ones created through social change, technological change, and other factors but I and many think that we have hit a special time in history where technology will simply take over many more jobs than we can replace.  Technological progress is so advanced now that many products that we had to buy separately are now consolidated into one (an iphone is a fax machine, a phone, a computer, a camera, a tv, etc) and at times less people are needed in the aggregate to make these products.  Lastly, and this is just semantics,  I do believe that many techno-optimists believe technological progress automatically means “good” because we associate the word technology with human advancement and because “progress” is  a word that assumes benevolence, but this is not the case. Technological and scientific progress are not inherently good.  I am no luddite and I am a lover of science BUT science and technological advancement are sometimes removed and unaware of the unintended consequences created by their advancement since we rarely know all the social, economic, political, ramifications brought by said technology/scientific discoveries at the time of their creation and birth. So to assume everything will be a positive step forward is a naive assumption not supported by data but simply a subjective feeling of comfort and happiness because tech progress is being made. So i am no luddite, but I do think there is cause this time to be healthily afraid of what is to come.  A capitalist system has historically relied on humans but when those who own the means of production switch to a more inexpensive, rational, hard working, and anti-error prone substitute …. then what happens? It has never been done before so to assume you can use history as a guide (which is usually a very intelligent move) is somewhat misguided for what is to come has never happened before. : Lee Fang @lhfang When robotics/driverless cars replace 1/3 jobs in America, and the political establishment does nothing, 2016 anger will look minuscule. 11/5/16, 10:03 PM 287 RETWEETS 497 LIKES cracked-pearl-78: c-bassmeow: Shit Luddites have been making this claim since the Industrial Revolution and they are no closer to being true. While you are historically correct, many economists, tech experts (people who work with tech who are far from luddites), and even CEO’s of tech companies believe that with the increasing automation  of jobs, many jobs will go to machines and there will be a great, massive reduction in jobs. Economists both from the left and right think this is to be true since it’s already happening just not to a large extent YET. Even the Bureau of labor statistics projects massive job loss due to human jobs becoming obsolete because technological changes that make it more efficient to replace humans with machines/computers since it will be cheaper, less error, and more efficient to replace humans since machines do not need to rest, do not have families, can be worked to their extreme, and can be programmed to do something correctly all the time. Moreover with the prospect of artificial intelligence which is being invested heavily, the change might manifest more rapidly. One remedy for this from some economists from both the left and right is to enact a universal basic income. But while I appreciate your skepticism, which is very healthy because i too have a disdain for predictions with no basis in reality or that sound alarmist- to my knowledge there seems to be a slow, growing consensus from many fields that technological progress will replace many many human jobs the extent to which they will replace them is obviously debatable but the fact that they will be replaced to some degree that affects us seems to not be. I’m sorry I can’t cite sources I’m on my phone at the moment.Also,  throughout history technological progress has always replaced jobs.  There are less shoemakers now, farmers, cashiers, and countless other positions due to technological progress. Historically though,  we have been able to replace these jobs with new ones created through social change, technological change, and other factors but I and many think that we have hit a special time in history where technology will simply take over many more jobs than we can replace.  Technological progress is so advanced now that many products that we had to buy separately are now consolidated into one (an iphone is a fax machine, a phone, a computer, a camera, a tv, etc) and at times less people are needed in the aggregate to make these products.  Lastly, and this is just semantics,  I do believe that many techno-optimists believe technological progress automatically means “good” because we associate the word technology with human advancement and because “progress” is  a word that assumes benevolence, but this is not the case. Technological and scientific progress are not inherently good.  I am no luddite and I am a lover of science BUT science and technological advancement are sometimes removed and unaware of the unintended consequences created by their advancement since we rarely know all the social, economic, political, ramifications brought by said technology/scientific discoveries at the time of their creation and birth. So to assume everything will be a positive step forward is a naive assumption not supported by data but simply a subjective feeling of comfort and happiness because tech progress is being made. So i am no luddite, but I do think there is cause this time to be healthily afraid of what is to come.  A capitalist system has historically relied on humans but when those who own the means of production switch to a more inexpensive, rational, hard working, and anti-error prone substitute …. then what happens? It has never been done before so to assume you can use history as a guide (which is usually a very intelligent move) is somewhat misguided for what is to come has never happened before. 
Save
edens-blog: inner-fish: leftist-daily-reminders:leftist-daily-reminders:winterayars:leftist-daily-reminders:randomrants-obdm:Never gets an order wrong, takes breaks, gets lazy, comes in late, ‘forgets’ to wash hands after restroom, gets frustrated, or gets paidOf course ancaps just view human labor as a cost to be minimized and a tool for the accumulation of capital. Of course the implication here is “beg for scraps from the capitalists or starve”. Under more ideal conditions, where the means of production wasn’t hoarded by elites and managed in top-down fashion, machines replacing menial jobs would be precisely what we want – that means shorter hours and more leisure time. Under the current system, people need to find any job (no matter how necessary) and earn wages in order to subsist, so of course we’ve been conditioned to view machines replacing labor as a threat. But why should it be? If so many jobs aren’t necessary because they don’t, well, build and maintain the necessities of society (and only serve the interests of capital and bureaucracy), and so many other jobs aren’t necessary because they can be replaced by machines, WHY do we put up with this bullshit?? If everyone divvied up the necessary jobs in a democratic post-capitalist society, they could be eased by tech and the shifts could be reduced to fractions of what they are now. Capitalism will not be able to cope with the automation it sets into motion. Socialism is nigh.Capitalism will not be able to cope with automation. A lot of current theories about labor, capital, and the like will not be able to cope with a world where 1 person’s labor can provide a reasonable life for 100.Exactly. A central capitalist contradiction will make itself known in the next couple decades: if businesses are going to want to compete, they’ll need to automate, which in turn means laying off workers by the millions; the unemployed masses will not be able to buy the products that the capitalists sell, and at some time then a tipping point will be reached where the only jobs presented to people will be building and maintaining the machines (of course a bit of an exaggeration, but it’ll still likely be close to the reality). Universal basic income proposals will crop up, and the elite will see it as an opportunity to keep capitalism alive and kicking. (In other words, UBIs in this context are meant to maintain capitalism’s tiered ownership over the means of production, land, and resources, but with redistributive taxation to provide a livable floor for people, all to mitigate revolutionary upheaval in the end.) Of course socialists would rather just ditch this convoluted process of UBIs and taxation as a sophisticated feeding tube for capitalism – just turn the economy over to the people for democratic/for-need management and utilize all that automation for the collective good. That means people benefitting en masse, thus shorter shifts, thus more time for leisure and creative self-actualization and socializing. In that potential post-capitalist democracy, in the many scenarios where one person’s labor could provide a reasonable life for a hundred, you just need to divvy up those jobs so that any burden that exists can be eased, alongside a community of people having daily shifts of, say, 2 to 4 hours (and even that’s very likely a conservative estimate). Technology and democratic management of the collective capacities have the potential to liberate people from so much toil, if only we were to think outside of the myopic box of mainstream political discourse presented to us by OP. This isn’t about minimum wages – this is about demanding a world that works for human beings by default, not only when it’s convenient for the gears of capital. This isn’t about “the people need more jobs” – we ultimately need less jobs, with a focus on the necessary ones divvied up among populations and the economy from there focused on literally meeting societal needs, all so that people can spend most of their lives pursuing their interests and building connections. The creation of art, culture, inventions, and entertainment would arise from self-actualized individuals who create because they want to or because they see value in enriching the lives of others. We can do so, so much better than the bland status quo discourse that insists we must choose between smaller scraps and machines stealing our ability to access resources. The scraps were made by us, as was the whole feast, and they only find their way down to us because a superfluous owner class accrues the majority of the feast based on their unnecessary top-down ownership; the machines should be creating a world where it’s easier for us to access resources, not representing the opposite as a threat to us.I just want to remind everybody that OP is an ancap and that this is the disgusting view capitalism-apologists have of workers in the service industry. These machines are perfect for people who are mute, deaf, have anxiety, can’t read, or can’t speak English. This post is stupid and these machines are great.: ORDER HEREORDER HERE edens-blog: inner-fish: leftist-daily-reminders:leftist-daily-reminders:winterayars:leftist-daily-reminders:randomrants-obdm:Never gets an order wrong, takes breaks, gets lazy, comes in late, ‘forgets’ to wash hands after restroom, gets frustrated, or gets paidOf course ancaps just view human labor as a cost to be minimized and a tool for the accumulation of capital. Of course the implication here is “beg for scraps from the capitalists or starve”. Under more ideal conditions, where the means of production wasn’t hoarded by elites and managed in top-down fashion, machines replacing menial jobs would be precisely what we want – that means shorter hours and more leisure time. Under the current system, people need to find any job (no matter how necessary) and earn wages in order to subsist, so of course we’ve been conditioned to view machines replacing labor as a threat. But why should it be? If so many jobs aren’t necessary because they don’t, well, build and maintain the necessities of society (and only serve the interests of capital and bureaucracy), and so many other jobs aren’t necessary because they can be replaced by machines, WHY do we put up with this bullshit?? If everyone divvied up the necessary jobs in a democratic post-capitalist society, they could be eased by tech and the shifts could be reduced to fractions of what they are now. Capitalism will not be able to cope with the automation it sets into motion. Socialism is nigh.Capitalism will not be able to cope with automation. A lot of current theories about labor, capital, and the like will not be able to cope with a world where 1 person’s labor can provide a reasonable life for 100.Exactly. A central capitalist contradiction will make itself known in the next couple decades: if businesses are going to want to compete, they’ll need to automate, which in turn means laying off workers by the millions; the unemployed masses will not be able to buy the products that the capitalists sell, and at some time then a tipping point will be reached where the only jobs presented to people will be building and maintaining the machines (of course a bit of an exaggeration, but it’ll still likely be close to the reality). Universal basic income proposals will crop up, and the elite will see it as an opportunity to keep capitalism alive and kicking. (In other words, UBIs in this context are meant to maintain capitalism’s tiered ownership over the means of production, land, and resources, but with redistributive taxation to provide a livable floor for people, all to mitigate revolutionary upheaval in the end.) Of course socialists would rather just ditch this convoluted process of UBIs and taxation as a sophisticated feeding tube for capitalism – just turn the economy over to the people for democratic/for-need management and utilize all that automation for the collective good. That means people benefitting en masse, thus shorter shifts, thus more time for leisure and creative self-actualization and socializing. In that potential post-capitalist democracy, in the many scenarios where one person’s labor could provide a reasonable life for a hundred, you just need to divvy up those jobs so that any burden that exists can be eased, alongside a community of people having daily shifts of, say, 2 to 4 hours (and even that’s very likely a conservative estimate). Technology and democratic management of the collective capacities have the potential to liberate people from so much toil, if only we were to think outside of the myopic box of mainstream political discourse presented to us by OP. This isn’t about minimum wages – this is about demanding a world that works for human beings by default, not only when it’s convenient for the gears of capital. This isn’t about “the people need more jobs” – we ultimately need less jobs, with a focus on the necessary ones divvied up among populations and the economy from there focused on literally meeting societal needs, all so that people can spend most of their lives pursuing their interests and building connections. The creation of art, culture, inventions, and entertainment would arise from self-actualized individuals who create because they want to or because they see value in enriching the lives of others. We can do so, so much better than the bland status quo discourse that insists we must choose between smaller scraps and machines stealing our ability to access resources. The scraps were made by us, as was the whole feast, and they only find their way down to us because a superfluous owner class accrues the majority of the feast based on their unnecessary top-down ownership; the machines should be creating a world where it’s easier for us to access resources, not representing the opposite as a threat to us.I just want to remind everybody that OP is an ancap and that this is the disgusting view capitalism-apologists have of workers in the service industry. These machines are perfect for people who are mute, deaf, have anxiety, can’t read, or can’t speak English. This post is stupid and these machines are great.
Save
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://algopop.tumblr.com/post/149694196348">algopop</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>’<b><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/29/facebook-fires-trending-topics-team-algorithm">Facebook fires trending team, and algorithm without humans goes crazy’</a> - </b>The Guardian<br/></p> <blockquote> <p>Just months after the discovery that Facebook’s “trending” news module was curated and tweaked by human beings, the company has eliminated its editors and left the algorithm to do its job. The results, so far, are a disaster.</p> <p>Over the weekend, the fully automated <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/facebook">Facebook</a> trending module pushed out a false story about Fox News host Megyn Kelly, a controversial piece about a comedian’s four-letter word attack on rightwing pundit Ann Coulter, and links to an article about a video of a man masturbating with a McDonald’s chicken sandwich.</p> <p>The dismissal of the trending module team appears to have been a long-term plan at Facebook. A source told the Guardian the trending module was meant to have “learned” from the human editors’ curation decisions and was always meant to eventually reach full automation.<br/></p> </blockquote> </blockquote> <p>I saw that McChicken thing but to be honest I barely noticed a difference in the quality of trending posts. </p>: Bea Arthur 10K people talking about this The terrible reason #McChicken is trending on McChicken 7.4K people talking about this Twitter Cannot unsee. mashable.com See more posts about McChicken... Go Topless Day 43K people talking about this Victor Cruz 10K people talking about this Alison Carey 7 hours ago | 9.4K people talking about this <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://algopop.tumblr.com/post/149694196348">algopop</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>’<b><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/29/facebook-fires-trending-topics-team-algorithm">Facebook fires trending team, and algorithm without humans goes crazy’</a> - </b>The Guardian<br/></p> <blockquote> <p>Just months after the discovery that Facebook’s “trending” news module was curated and tweaked by human beings, the company has eliminated its editors and left the algorithm to do its job. The results, so far, are a disaster.</p> <p>Over the weekend, the fully automated <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/facebook">Facebook</a> trending module pushed out a false story about Fox News host Megyn Kelly, a controversial piece about a comedian’s four-letter word attack on rightwing pundit Ann Coulter, and links to an article about a video of a man masturbating with a McDonald’s chicken sandwich.</p> <p>The dismissal of the trending module team appears to have been a long-term plan at Facebook. A source told the Guardian the trending module was meant to have “learned” from the human editors’ curation decisions and was always meant to eventually reach full automation.<br/></p> </blockquote> </blockquote> <p>I saw that McChicken thing but to be honest I barely noticed a difference in the quality of trending posts. </p>
Save
<p><a href="http://ryanandmath.tumblr.com/post/107463087770/alice-zielinski-is-currently-an-mit-undergraduate" class="tumblr_blog">ryanandmath</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><strong>Alice Zielinski</strong> is currently an MIT undergraduate studying aeronautical &amp; astronautical engineering and computer science &amp; electrical engineering. <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/things-people-say-to-blond-engineers-at-mit">In this article</a>, she tells us that</p> <blockquote> <p><em>“Many MIT students recount questions about their GPA, test scores, magnificent things they’ve built, other accomplishments—while I often find myself trying to convince people that I actually attend MIT. The reactions that I’ve received from people range from amusing to borderline offensive, from delightful to ‘what??’”</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Just another thing to show to your friends who don’t believe that sexism in STEM is a thing. Especially since she had to write a <a href="https://medium.com/@alicezielinski/afterword-mit-blonde-engineer-response-67dbd7d5fc2">follow up addressing negative responses</a>.</p></blockquote>: Things People Say When You're A Blond Female Engineer At MIT On MIT Campus I'm sitting on a bench off the Infinite Corridor conversing with my best friend. A friend of hers approaches us. Cue introduction Hi! Where do you go to school? I'm wearing a MIT jacket. My backpack lies beside me. We're in MIT's academic buildings. "I'm a student here. At MIT." "Really?" Random Guy At Starbucks What are you working on?" "I'm writing an international relations paper on global politics." Cool! Are you studying to be a lawyer? Where do you go to school?" No, actually I'm studying engineering at MIT." Oh! So you're like a genius? But you seem so down to earth! Did you have some traumatizing childhood experience that brought you down to earth?" "How is that relevant?" With the questions you ask, you should be a lawyer. Wanna go have some fun?" Excuse me? I need to finish my paper." Random Guy At The Computers Context: At a cluster of MIT computers and printers. I was printing study materials. Hey! You look good! What are you doing here? Uhm, thanks. I'm headed to the library." What!? But you're wearing a dress!? Do you go to MIT?? How bout I take you out? "Yeah, I go to MIT... and I'm going to the library..." The PhD Grad Student So you're an engineering student? What do you do? "I work in controls engineering, signals processing, and automation." Okay. But actually, do you do any real engineering? <p><a href="http://ryanandmath.tumblr.com/post/107463087770/alice-zielinski-is-currently-an-mit-undergraduate" class="tumblr_blog">ryanandmath</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><strong>Alice Zielinski</strong> is currently an MIT undergraduate studying aeronautical &amp; astronautical engineering and computer science &amp; electrical engineering. <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/things-people-say-to-blond-engineers-at-mit">In this article</a>, she tells us that</p> <blockquote> <p><em>“Many MIT students recount questions about their GPA, test scores, magnificent things they’ve built, other accomplishments—while I often find myself trying to convince people that I actually attend MIT. The reactions that I’ve received from people range from amusing to borderline offensive, from delightful to ‘what??’”</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Just another thing to show to your friends who don’t believe that sexism in STEM is a thing. Especially since she had to write a <a href="https://medium.com/@alicezielinski/afterword-mit-blonde-engineer-response-67dbd7d5fc2">follow up addressing negative responses</a>.</p></blockquote>

<p><a href="http://ryanandmath.tumblr.com/post/107463087770/alice-zielinski-is-currently-an-mit-undergraduate" class="tumblr_blog">ryanan...

Save
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://eltigrechico.tumblr.com/post/119884653929/you-can-mandate-a-minimum-wage-but-you-cant">eltigrechico</a>:</p> <blockquote><blockquote><p><b>“…You can mandate a minimum wage, but you can’t require anybody to actually pay it. Because ultimately, the employer decides, <i>is it worth paying some unskilled worker $15 a hour</i>? Now, in some cases it will be the case, in many cases, it won’t be… So all these people who are so excited about the $15 an hour minimum wage, most of them are not gonna be employed long enough to receive it… And of course, ultimately, the real movement is gonna be towards automation, towards robotics, and things like that as employers look to substitute capital, computers, technology, for ever-increasing labor costs. And, again, it’s not just that $15 an hour–it’s the workman’s comp, the disability, the social security, the liability–all the headaches that come with hiring people are eliminated if you just automate.”</b></p></blockquote><h2><a href="https://youtu.be/airH-4fxWWQ?t=1050">-Peter Schiff</a></h2></blockquote>: <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://eltigrechico.tumblr.com/post/119884653929/you-can-mandate-a-minimum-wage-but-you-cant">eltigrechico</a>:</p> <blockquote><blockquote><p><b>“…You can mandate a minimum wage, but you can’t require anybody to actually pay it. Because ultimately, the employer decides, <i>is it worth paying some unskilled worker $15 a hour</i>? Now, in some cases it will be the case, in many cases, it won’t be… So all these people who are so excited about the $15 an hour minimum wage, most of them are not gonna be employed long enough to receive it… And of course, ultimately, the real movement is gonna be towards automation, towards robotics, and things like that as employers look to substitute capital, computers, technology, for ever-increasing labor costs. And, again, it’s not just that $15 an hour–it’s the workman’s comp, the disability, the social security, the liability–all the headaches that come with hiring people are eliminated if you just automate.”</b></p></blockquote><h2><a href="https://youtu.be/airH-4fxWWQ?t=1050">-Peter Schiff</a></h2></blockquote>

<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://eltigrechico.tumblr.com/post/119884653929/you-can-mandate-a-minimum-wage-but-you-cant">eltigrechic...

Save