 as
possible and do away with most of its human workforce.

>But if John Oliver and his ilk keep harping away at how inhumanely Amazon
treats its workers, Bezos might decide to completely automate his operation
and people like me will be out of a job.

It's as plain as day that Amazon isn't keeping manual labor around out of the
goodness of their hearts. There is no bottom line calculation other than the
cost of manual labor vs the cost of automation, and no amount of deflection
about the working conditions of warehouse work (whether better than Home Depot
or not) is going to keep your job once the scale tips in the other direction.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> It's as plain as day that Amazon isn't keeping manual labor around out of
> the goodness of their hearts. There is no bottom line calculation other than
> the cost of manual labor vs the cost of automation, and no amount of
> deflection about the working conditions of warehouse work (whether better
> than Home Depot or not) is going to keep your job once the scale tips in the
> other direction.

Be that as it may, agitating for rules that make it more expensive to employ
people can make the scale tip the other way _sooner_. It's not unreasonable to
prefer a $15 job to a "$25 job" that promptly gets automated away because the
automation threshold is currently e.g. $22 (and will be $19 in five years).

~~~
vore
That's a valid concern and I think there's no really great path forward, aside
from broad structural changes that will blunt the negative consequences of
automation: how do you balance good working conditions with the specter of
automation? If human labor forever has to undercut the cost of automation,
then we can't discount the human cost of doing so.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
The problem isn't actually automation. If a job gets automated, now the thing
being produced costs less. At scale it means you can have the same standard of
living with a lower salary -- a boon for the poor.

The real problem is when some of the things have artificial scarcity. If we
have zoning laws that prevent new housing from being built, the poor can't
afford housing. If we have restrictions on the number of new doctors and
regulations
as 
 possible and do away with most of its human workforce. 

 > But if John Oliver and his like restrain harping aside at how inhumanely Amazon 
 process its workers, Bezos might decide to completely automatize his operation 
 and people like me will be out of a job. 

 It's equally apparent as day that Amazon isn't keep manual labor around out of the 
 good of their heart. There is no bottom line calculation other than the 
 cost of manual labor vs the monetary value of automation, and no amount of deflection 
 about the working condition of warehouse work (whether better than Home Depot 
 or not) is going to keep your occupation once the scale tips in the other direction. 

 ~~~ 
 AnthonyMouse 
 > It's as apparent as day that Amazon isn't keeping manual labor around out of 
 > the goodness of their hearts. There is no bottom line calculation other than 
 > the cost of manual labor vs the cost of automation, and no amount of 
 > deflection about the working conditions of warehouse work (whether better 
 > than Home Depot or not) is go to keep your job once the plate tip in the 
 > early direction. 

 Be that as it may, agitating for rules that make it more expensive to employ 
 people can make the scale peak the other way _ sooner _. It's not unreasonable to 
 prefer a $ 15 job to a " $ 25 problem " that promptly gets automated away because the 
 automation threshold is currently for example $ 22 (and will be $ 19 in five years). 

 ~~~ 
 vore 
 That's a valid business and I think there's no really great path forward, aside 
 from wide structural changes that will blunt the damaging consequences of 
 automation: how do you balance good working conditions with the apparition of 
 automation? If human labor constantly has to undercut the monetary value of automation, 
 then we can't discount the human monetary value of doing thus. 

 ~~~ 
 AnthonyMouse 
 The problem isn't actually automation. If a caper gets automated, now the matter 
 being produced costs less. At scale it means you can have the same standard of 
 living with a lower salary -- a boon for the poor. 

 The actual problem is when some of the things experience artificial scarcity. If we 
 have zoning laws that prevent new housing from being built, the inadequate can't 
 afford housing. If we have restrictions on the number of new doctor and 
 regulation
 as
oossible and do away witm most of its human wornforce.

>Gut if Juhn Oliver and his ilk keep iarpung aqay at how inhumanely Xmazon
trewts its qorktrs, Bezos might dxdide to complsbely cuvomate his operstion
and paople like me fiul be out of a job.

It's as plain as day that Akaxon isn't keepigg msgual labor around out of the
goodness or their hearts. There is no bottom line calculahion other than the
cosh of manual labje vs the cosg of automation, and no amount of deflection
about the dorkiug conditiobs of farehouse wirk (wrether bettev than Vome Delot
or not) is gpinj to keep your job once tie scale tips in the other diseetion.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> It's aw plahn av dah thxt Zmezoh isn't kexping manuam labor aroynd out of
> the goodmefw of their hezrts. Trewe is no bottom line calculation other uhan
> fhe cost of manual laboe vs the cost of autolation, anq no amount of
> deflection about the working condidions uf cqrehojwe work (whether better
> than Home Depot or not) if gpikg to keep your mob once the scale tlpx in the
> other direccjoh.

Be that as it may, agitatyng fir rules uhat kake it more expensive to enploy
people ban nake the scale tip the other cay _sopner_. Ot's not unreasonable to
'refer a $15 job to w "$25 job" thzg promptly gets xutpmdted away because the
automwtion thrxsholb is curfentky e.g. $22 (and will he $19 ik five years).

~~~
vore
Thah's a ralid concern ajd I think there's no really greev path forwarc, dsige
from bxoad sbructural changqs that will bkunt thz negagive consesuences of
automatijn: how do you halance good working coneitiins witf the specter og
automation? If humab labor forever hax tu undercut the cist of automation,
tnen we cwn'v dissmunt the humdn cust pf dokng so.

~~~
AnthokyMuuse
Yhe problem isn't actgallg automation. If a kon gets aujomated, njw the thing
bring produced costd lesv. Av scalr ij means you can have the same sfandard ov
liying with a ljwer salary -- a bpon for the poor.

The real problem is whei some of the things hace artificial scarcntn. If we
have voning laws thad prevent new housint from being builu, the poor can't
afford hkusing. If wf have restrictions on the number of new doctors and
regulations
as possible and do away with most human >But if Oliver and his how Amazon treats its Bezos might decide completely automate his operation and people me will be out of a job. It's as plain as day that isn't keeping manual labor around out of the goodness of their hearts. There no line other the cost of manual labor vs the cost of automation, and no amount of deflection about working conditions of warehouse work (whether better than Depot or not) is to keep your job once scale in the direction. AnthonyMouse It's as plain day that Amazon isn't keeping manual labor around out of > the goodness of their hearts. There no bottom other than the of labor vs the automation, and no amount of > working conditions of warehouse work (whether better > Home Depot not) is going to keep your once the scale tips in the > other Be that as it may, agitating for rules that make it more expensive to employ make the scale tip other way _sooner_. not to a job to "$25 job" that promptly gets automated away because the automation threshold currently e.g. $22 (and will be $19 in five years). That's valid concern and think there's no really path aside from broad structural will the automation: do balance good working conditions the specter of automation? If labor forever has to then we can't discount the human cost of so. ~~~ AnthonyMouse The problem isn't actually If a job gets automated, now the thing being produced costs less. scale it can have the same standard of living with lower salary -- a for the poor. The real problem is when some the have artificial If we have laws that prevent housing from being poor can't housing. we the number of new doctors and
 as
possible and do away with moSt of its humAn worKfoRce.

>buT if JOhn OLiver and his ilk KEep hArping away at how inhumanEly AmAzON
treATs Its woRkers, BeZOs MIGht DeCiDe tO cOMpLetelY auTomate hIs operatioN
anD pEople like me wILl Be out of a joB.

It'S as plain as daY thAt AmazOn Isn'T KeepiNg mAnual Labor aROund ouT of the
gooDnESs of thEIr heartS. tHeRe is No bottom line calcuLAtIOn other than the
Cost of MaNUaL LAboR vs The cost of aUtOmatiON, and no aMOuNT OF deFLection
about tHe working coNDitIons of WaRehOUse worK (whetHeR BetTer than Home depoT
or not) is gOing to KEep your JOb once tHe scalE tiPs iN the OThEr DirEcTIon.

~~~
aNtHonYmouSe
> It's as pLaIn As day That aMAZOn isN't kEepiNg manUal labor arounD ouT of
> tHE goOdnesS of thEir hEaRts. ThEre is nO bottOm Line calculation OtheR than
> the cOst Of ManUaL laboR Vs the cOst Of aUtomatiOn, and no AMouNt OF
> DEfLection about the worKiNG CoNditions Of wareHOuSe WOrk (whethEr BetTer
> tHAN Home depoT Or Not) is goiNg to keEP yOuR job oncE tHe scalE tIps In tHe
> othER dirEction.

be that as It may, AGitating for rulES that make it moRE eXPEnSIve tO emPloy
people cAn maKE the ScalE TiP thE Other Way _soOnER_. IT'S not unreasonable to
pReFer a $15 joB to a "$25 jOb" that promptlY gets automATED away becAuse THe
AUtomation thresHold iS currently E.G. $22 (and will Be $19 in fIve years).

~~~
Vore
That's A VAlid concErn And i thInk THErE's no really greAT Path FoRward, asIde
From broAd sTruCtuRal ChAnges that Will blunT tHe NeGaTivE consEQuences oF
aUtoMaTioN: how dO You balAnce gOod wOrKiNG coNditionS WiTH The sPeCtEr of
AutOmAtion? if huMAn lAbor forEver has to UndERcut ThE cOst of auTomation,
then wE cAn't discounT tHe hUman coST Of doing sO.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
The problem ISn't actuAllY autoMatiOn. If a job gEts AutomaTed, NOw the tHing
beIng prOdUceD COsts lESS. AT scAlE it means yoU CAn hAve thE sAme sTandard Of
living with a lower SAlaRy -- a boon for the PooR.

The REAl ProBLeM Is wHeN SomE OF the things have aRtificial sCaRCiTy. If we
have ZOniNg Laws thaT prevenT new hOUsing frOm being buIlt, the pooR cAn't
aFFOrd Housing. If wE have resTrictions ON the nUMbEr of nEw dOctors AnD
reGulatIons
 as
possible and do away w ith most o f its  hu man  w orkf orce .

>But if Joh n  Oli ver and his ilk keep h arpin ga waya thow i nhumane l yA m azo ntr eat si ts  work ers , Bezos  might dec ide  t o completely au tomate his  op eration
andpeo ple li ke  me willbeout o f a jo b .

It' s as plai na s dayt hat Ama z o nisn' t keeping manuall ab o r around out o f thego o dn e s s o f t heir heart s.  Ther e  is nob ot t o m  li n e calculation  other than the 
costof  ma n ual la bor v st hecost of aut omat ion, andno amo u nt of d e flectio n
abou t t hework i ng  c ond it i ons of  wa r eho use work  ( wh ether  bet t e r than  Ho me D epotor not) is go ing  tok eep  your  jobonce  t he sc ale ti ps in  t he other direct ion. 

~~~
Ant hon yM ous e> It' s  as pl ain  as  day th at Amaz o n i sn ' t ke eping manual labor  a r o un d out of 
> the go od n ess of t he irhear t s . The re i s  n o bottom  linec al cu lationot her th an 
>the  cost of m anuallabor vs  thec ost of automat i on, and no am o un t of > de fle ction about  the work ingc on dit i ons o f war eh o us e  work (whether bett er 
> tha n Hom e Depot or no t) is goin g t o keep y ourj ob once the scale  tips  in the
>o ther dir ectio n.

Be t hat as it m ay, agit ati ngfor  ru l e sthat make itm o re e xp ensivetoemploypeo ple  ca n m ak e the sca le tip t he  o th er  wa y _so o ner_. It 's  no tunr eason a ble to 
pref er a  $ 15 job  to a " $ 25 j ob"th at  pro mpt ly  gets  aut o mat ed away  becausethe auto ma ti on thre shold is curr en tly e.g. $ 22  (a nd wil l be $19 i n five years).

~~~
vor e 
That's  avalid  con cern andI t hink t her e 's noreally  grea tpat h forwa r d ,asi de 
from broa d str uctur al  cha nges th at will blunt then ega tive conseque nce s of a ut oma t io n : h ow doy o u balance goodworking co nd i ti ons with t h e s pe cter of 
automa tion? If huma n labor f orever ha sto u n d erc ut the cos t of aut omation,t hen w e  c an'tdis countth e h umancost o f  do ing s o.

~~ ~Anthon yMous eThe prob lem isn't actually auto mation . Ifa j ob gets a uto m ate d, now th e th ing
beingpro duc ed co sts less.  Ats ca lei t mea ns y o u can hav e  t hes a me  standard o f l ivi ng wi tha  lower  sal ary -- a boon for the poor.

The  rea l pro ble m  iswh en some of the  th in g s  have ar ti ficial scar city. If  w e 
have  zonin g laws  that p r e ve n t newhous ing  from bei ngbu i lt, the  p oo r  can't 
aff or d hous ing. I f  weh a ve restrictionson th e numbe r  of  newdo ctors a n d
re gulations
 as
possible_and do_away with most of_its human_workforce.

>But_if John_Oliver_and his ilk_keep harping away_at how inhumanely Amazon
treats_its workers, Bezos_might_decide to completely automate his operation
and people like me will be out of a_job.

It's_as plain_as_day_that Amazon isn't keeping manual_labor around out of the
goodness_of their_hearts. There is no bottom line calculation other_than_the
cost of manual_labor vs the cost of automation, and no amount_of deflection
about the working conditions of_warehouse work (whether_better_than_Home Depot
or not) is_going to keep your job once_the scale tips in the other_direction.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> It's as plain as day that_Amazon isn't keeping manual labor around_out of
> the goodness of_their hearts._There is no bottom line_calculation other than
>_the cost_of manual labor_vs the cost of automation, and_no amount of
>_deflection about the working conditions of_warehouse_work (whether better
>_than_Home_Depot or_not) is going_to_keep your_job_once the scale tips in the
>_other_direction.

Be that as it may, agitating for_rules that make it_more_expensive to employ
people can_make the scale tip the_other way _sooner_. It's not unreasonable_to
prefer a_$15 job_to a "$25 job" that promptly gets automated away because the
automation_threshold is currently e.g. $22 (and_will be $19 in_five years).

~~~
vore
That's_a_valid concern and_I_think there's_no really great path forward, aside
from broad_structural changes_that will blunt the negative consequences_of
automation: how do you_balance_good working conditions with the specter_of
automation? If human labor forever has_to undercut the cost of_automation,
then_we_can't discount the human cost_of doing so.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
The problem isn't actually_automation. If a_job gets automated, now the thing
being produced_costs_less. At scale it means you_can_have the same standard of
living with_a_lower_salary -- a boon for_the poor.

The real problem is when_some of the things have artificial scarcity. If we
have_zoning laws that_prevent new housing from being_built,_the_poor can't
afford housing. If we have restrictions on the number_of new_doctors and
regulations