It takes a dedicated conspiracist to declare how the elite are pulling the wool over our eyes at news of an incremental improvement in a record achievement.
I think trying to tie the argument by analogy here, through overextention, to our consumeristic culture, and our paradoxically populist dislike for it, is a step too far rhetorically.
I'd like to hear your thoughts, just detached from the metaphor.
That's not a usage I've ever seen. It's certainly true people are quick to dismiss established ideas from powerful sources for various reasons that vary greatly in quality, but I don't think I've ever seen that notion attached to "critical thinking" as a definition.
Actual critical thinking is trickier to define. I like to think of it as always trying to come up with objective ways of comparing and judging ideas. And, critically, coming up with objective ways to compare and judge those "objective" measures.
Hypothetical perfect markets are the most efficient way to find the value of anything. The assumptions of the efficient market hypothesis are bunk, and the assumptions of true neoclassical economics without it are also bunk.
Nope. I don't buy your argument. Nationwide deployment will almost certainly save more money than Seattle employees could possibly cost in total. This is just framing by the journal, and it's disingenuous framing at that.
I want to interject that none of us who agree with you just said believe that there is no level at which increasing worker wages starts to hurt an economy. Just that unreasonably low wages also hinder both human happiness and economic growth. Finding the ideal is both tricky and not without risk. There's a difference between wishful thinking (getting paid more is always better for everyone) and the argument we're actually trying articulate.
Except the minimum wage hasn't actually increased anywhere but Seattle, Washington(and even there it's still being phased in), and more-over, one of the big principles that undercuts this argument is: "once you can automate away a job, is there any wage at which you wouldn't?"
Point of fact: McDonalds as a corporation doesn't sign those peoples' paychecks, at least if their business model hasn't changed since 2000ish. They do franchising, and make money on the fact that franchises have to purchase supplies from the company. This allows them to dodge risk on opening in poor locations, or personnel expenses.
Now, I'm not so thick-headed as to imagine that they wouldn't come up with something like this to help franchises with wage costs, but I'm also aware that this tech is coming to all sorts of places other than Seattle where the minimum wage actually went up.
I mean, maybe I'm just harking back to a past that exists only in my mind, but I seem to recall a time when the journal actually covered business in its pages, rather than regurgitating neoclassical economics talking points all-day every day, attempting to construe every single negative thing as a result of failing to religiously adhere to its principles.
Am I misremembering, and imagining the shift from kinda disagreeably right-leaning to fanatical?
I don't even know what you mean. Reality doesn't have morals, and the feds, at least to the extent they're involved, haven't been at all friendly to the notion of employers doing this.
No my central point was clearly that you were making a false equivalence. The end. You can live in an imaginary land where I said something different, but you have to know that's bullshit.
It's one of the many douchebags who always share your views also happening to share your views in this particular context who submitted the article, and no reflection of general attitudes on slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, you can do that up until you reach some core assumptions. Welcome to the inability of logic to prove itself.
It takes a dedicated conspiracist to declare how the elite are pulling the wool over our eyes at news of an incremental improvement in a record achievement.
And I'm glad the article says everything is just fine and there are no problems. What a relief.
I think trying to tie the argument by analogy here, through overextention, to our consumeristic culture, and our paradoxically populist dislike for it, is a step too far rhetorically.
I'd like to hear your thoughts, just detached from the metaphor.
That's not a usage I've ever seen. It's certainly true people are quick to dismiss established ideas from powerful sources for various reasons that vary greatly in quality, but I don't think I've ever seen that notion attached to "critical thinking" as a definition.
Actual critical thinking is trickier to define. I like to think of it as always trying to come up with objective ways of comparing and judging ideas. And, critically, coming up with objective ways to compare and judge those "objective" measures.
Hypothetical perfect markets are the most efficient way to find the value of anything. The assumptions of the efficient market hypothesis are bunk, and the assumptions of true neoclassical economics without it are also bunk.
Nope. I don't buy your argument. Nationwide deployment will almost certainly save more money than Seattle employees could possibly cost in total. This is just framing by the journal, and it's disingenuous framing at that.
I want to interject that none of us who agree with you just said believe that there is no level at which increasing worker wages starts to hurt an economy. Just that unreasonably low wages also hinder both human happiness and economic growth. Finding the ideal is both tricky and not without risk. There's a difference between wishful thinking (getting paid more is always better for everyone) and the argument we're actually trying articulate.
Any company not looking at automating away any level of skilled jobs at any point in history is just silly.
Employees cost money over time. Automation upfronts cost and then allows you to undercut competitors.
It's been that way since even before the steam engine.
Except the minimum wage hasn't actually increased anywhere but Seattle, Washington(and even there it's still being phased in), and more-over, one of the big principles that undercuts this argument is: "once you can automate away a job, is there any wage at which you wouldn't?"
Point of fact: McDonalds as a corporation doesn't sign those peoples' paychecks, at least if their business model hasn't changed since 2000ish. They do franchising, and make money on the fact that franchises have to purchase supplies from the company. This allows them to dodge risk on opening in poor locations, or personnel expenses.
Now, I'm not so thick-headed as to imagine that they wouldn't come up with something like this to help franchises with wage costs, but I'm also aware that this tech is coming to all sorts of places other than Seattle where the minimum wage actually went up.
I mean, maybe I'm just harking back to a past that exists only in my mind, but I seem to recall a time when the journal actually covered business in its pages, rather than regurgitating neoclassical economics talking points all-day every day, attempting to construe every single negative thing as a result of failing to religiously adhere to its principles.
Am I misremembering, and imagining the shift from kinda disagreeably right-leaning to fanatical?
More like "But I invested money and got the shaft". But yeah, when you're investing, you're definitely taking on risk.
I don't even know what you mean. Reality doesn't have morals, and the feds, at least to the extent they're involved, haven't been at all friendly to the notion of employers doing this.
Yeah, but it seems like the point was "Does Google have good ideas anymore?" not "Can I stick with my status quo come hell or highwater?"
I think I specifically have a point that they're not a substitute for emergency calls.
Have you ever actually called those?
They say "If this is an emergency, please hang up and dial 911".
No my central point was clearly that you were making a false equivalence. The end. You can live in an imaginary land where I said something different, but you have to know that's bullshit.
Oh, look, you responded to the side points of my post with mindless detail quibbling on points I acknowledged as valid, which is fucking petty
And then you responded to the central argument of my post with brainless hostility.
You. Are. Stupid.
"better sourced"
lol. I forgot that academic journals were less credible than youtube videos. I double lose.
Or...
Get this....
It's one of the many douchebags who always share your views also happening to share your views in this particular context who submitted the article, and no reflection of general attitudes on slashdot.
You care because that's how roblimo feeds his family. Video ads of products.
Ah, you're conflating the notion that some people in a similar position to you do create that environment with the notion that you specifically do.
Also, I think my "preferred group" would nominally be middle class straight white males, since that's what'd benefit me personally the most.
I forgot that the point of links was to have a certain number, and not to support a point you're making. That retroactively means I lose all debates.
Darn.
Your technicality is acknowledged and discarded on the grounds that your love of the status quo is arbitrary.
And besides, don't you want your home country to win more gold medals.