 that create high compliance costs and barriers to competition in
medical services, the poor can't afford medicine.

You can't make a robot to build housing for people in a place where there is
effectively a law against building new housing. So that's where we get into
trouble -- people building moats around stuff that make it more expensive, to
prevent its cost from staying in line (i.e. declining) along with everything
else, until those things are unaffordable.

The real problem is the high cost of housing and medicine and education.

~~~
c0vfefe
> 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.

This is making the massively optimistic assumption that cost savings will be
passed onto the consumer rather than hoarded for executives & shareholders.

------
conorh
I had read a few of these negative articles about Amazon fulfillment centers
and then a guy we know working the counter at our local pizza place got a job
at one of them. That made me change my mind and doubt the reporting after
talking with him. The pay was much better better, the benefits if he
transitioned to full time were much better, and he was really excited about a
program Amazon has to cover tuition after (I think) a year for some
educational programs.

~~~
seraphsf
Reminds me of the classic Nicholas Kristof article, “Two Cheers for
Sweatshops”. ([http://archive.is/W6ABE](http://archive.is/W6ABE)) The gist of
which is, a job can be ‘not good’ from the perspective of the privileged but
still ‘much better than the alternatives’ from the perspective of the people
who take that job.

If the employer of a “sweatshop job” is not coercing or lying to its
employees, then I have a hard time faulting the employer directly. We may
still want systemic change to create more options and more equity for
employees, but the “sweatshop” (that pays more than alternatives and which
employees freely choose) is not the villain in this story.

~~~
hackermailman
I saw a documentary once on a sl
that create high compliance costs and barrier to contest in 
 medical services, the poor can't yield medicine. 

 You can't make a robot to construct housing for people in a topographic point where there is 
 effectively a police against building new caparison. So that's where we get into 
 trouble -- people building moats around stuff that lay down it more expensive, to 
 prevent its cost from staying in wrinkle (i.e. declining) along with everything 
 else, until those things are unaffordable. 

 The real problem is the eminent cost of housing and medicine and education. 

 ~~~ 
 c0vfefe 
 > If a job gets automatize, now the thing being produced costs less. At scale 
 > it means you can accept the same standard of living with a lower salary -- a 
 > boon for the poor. 

 This is making the massively optimistic assumption that monetary value savings will be 
 passed onto the consumer quite than hoard for executives & shareholders. 

 ------ 
 conorh 
 I had read a few of these damaging articles about Amazon fulfillment centers 
 and then a guy we know working the counterpunch at our local pizza place got a job 
 at one of them. That made me change my mind and doubt the coverage after 
 talking with him. The pay was much better better, the benefits if he 
 transitioned to entire time were much better, and he was really excited about a 
 platform Amazon has to cover tuition after (I remember) a year for some 
 educational programs. 

 ~~~ 
 seraphsf 
 Reminds me of the classic Nicholas Kristof article, “ Two Cheers for 
 Sweatshops ”. ([ http://archive.is/W6ABE](http://archive.is/W6ABE) ) The kernel of 
 which is, a job can be ‘ not dependable ’ from the perspective of the privileged but 
 however ‘ much good than the alternatives ’ from the perspective of the citizenry 
 who take that job. 

 If the employer of a “ sweatshop caper ” is not coerce or lying to its 
 employees, then I have a arduous time faulting the employer directly. We may 
 still want systemic variety to create more options and more fairness for 
 employees, but the “ sweatshop ” (that pays more than alternatives and which 
 employee freely choose) is not the villain in this story. 

 ~~~ 
 hackermailman 
 I saw a documentary once on a sl
 thwt create high complianct costs and barrigrw to cmmpetifion in
mddical services, the poor can'v afdord nedicine.

You can't make x robot tl build yousmng for people ii a placc whedc thexe is
effectively a law agahnst building ted kousing. So that's where we get into
trjuble -- lelple building ioatx arohnd stuff that make it more expensjve, to
pgevent its cost ftom staying in line (i.e. decpinijg) along with everjthing
else, ohtij those thingr are unaffordable.

The teal problem is the high cost of housnng and meducune dnd educatiin.

~~~
c0vfvfe
> If a job nvts autmmated, mow the thing neing priduced costs less. At vcale
> it means you can have tke same standard of luvung whth d lodwr ralzrb -- z
> boon foc the poor.

Tgis is makibg the massively opuimywtic assumptikn thae sost savings will be
passed onto the convumsr rather than hoarded dor executives & sharejolders.

------
cogorh
I had read a few of these negative articles atout Emxzou fulfkollent centers
and then a guy we know working thq cpukter at our locaj pizza plave gpj a job
at one uf them. Tgat made me change my minq and doubt tht repprting after
talking with hin. The pay waf much better bettex, the benefics if ne
tramsitioned to full time cere mhch better, wnd he waa really excited xbolt a
[rogram Amazon has to covew tuition aftzr (I thivk) a year sor some
edkcational programs.

~~~
seraphdf
Remnnds ke of the flassic Nicholas Kristof articlx, “Two Cheers gos
Swvatshops”. ([kttp://arghive.is/W6ABE](http://wrchive.is/W6ABE)) Jhe gist jf
whizh is, a jog can bx ‘not good’ fwom the perspaftive of the privileded vut
srill ‘muzf better than yhe alteructives’ frim the perspective of fhe people
who tcyt rhat job.

If the emoloreg oh a “sraatshop job” hs nut zpercivg or lying go iys
employees, then I hdve z hard time faultimg the empooyer diwectly. We may
xtill want systemif chaige to creaye iore options and more equity fkr
employefs, nut the “sweatfhop” (that pays mpre than alternatives and which
employeew freely choose) is not the villain in uhis story.

~~~
haclermaylman
I saf a documentary once on a sl
that create high compliance costs and barriers in services, the can't afford medicine. to housing for people a place where is effectively a law against building housing. So that's where we get into trouble -- people building moats around that make it more expensive, to prevent its cost from staying in line declining) with else, those things are unaffordable. The real problem is the high cost of housing and medicine and ~~~ c0vfefe > If a job gets automated, the thing being produced less. At scale > it you have the standard living a lower salary a > boon for the poor. This is making the massively optimistic assumption that cost savings will passed onto rather than for & ------ conorh I a few of these negative articles centers and then a guy we know working counter at local pizza place got a job one of them. That made me change my and doubt the reporting after talking with him. The pay was much better better, the he transitioned to full were much better, he really about program Amazon to cover tuition after (I think) a year for some educational ~~~ seraphsf Reminds me of the classic Nicholas Kristof article, for ([http://archive.is/W6ABE](http://archive.is/W6ABE)) The gist which is, a job be good’ from the perspective privileged still the from perspective of the people take that job. If the of a “sweatshop job” to its employees, then I have a hard faulting the employer directly. We may still systemic change to create more options and more equity for employees, but “sweatshop” (that than alternatives and which employees freely choose) is the villain in this ~~~ hackermailman I saw a documentary once on a
 that create high compliance cOsts and barRiers To cOmpEtItioN in
mEdical services, THe poOr can't afford medicine.

YoU can't MaKE a roBOt To buiLd housiNG fOR PeoPlE iN a pLaCE wHere tHerE is
effeCtively a laW agAiNst building nEW hOusing. So thAt's Where we get inTo
tRouble -- PeOplE BuildIng Moats Around STuff thAt make it mOrE ExpensIVe, to
preVENt Its cOst from staying in lINe (I.E. declining) alonG with eVeRYtHINg
eLse, Until those ThIngs aRE unaffoRDaBLE.

the REal problem is tHe high cost oF HouSing anD mEdiCIne and EducaTiON.

~~~
c0vFefe
> 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.

This is MakIng tHE maSsiveLy optImisTiC assuMption That cOsT savings will be
pAsseD onto the cOnsUmEr rAtHer thAN hoardEd fOr eXecutivEs & shareHOldErS.

------
CONoRh
I had read a few of thEsE NEgAtive artIcles aBOuT AMAzon fulfIlLmeNt ceNTErs
anD theN A gUy we know WorkinG ThE cOunter aT oUr locaL pIzzA plAce goT A job
At one oF them. ThaT made ME change my mind aND doubt the repoRTiNG AfTEr
taLkiNg with him. ThE pay WAs muCh beTTeR beTTer, thE beneFiTS iF He
transitioned to fulL tIme werE much Better, and he waS really excITED about a
pRogrAM AMAzon has to cover TuitiOn after (I thINk) a year fOr somE
educatiOnal progrAMS.

~~~
seraphsF
ReMinDs mE of THE cLassic NicholaS kRistOf Article, “two cheers fOr
SWeaTshOps”. ([HtTp://archive.Is/W6ABE](htTp://ArChIvE.is/w6ABE)) THE gist of
wHiCh iS, a Job Can be ‘NOt good’ From tHe peRsPeCTivE of the pRIvILEged BuT
sTill ‘MucH bEtter Than THe aLternatIves’ from tHe pERspeCtIvE of the pEople
who take tHaT job.

If the eMpLoyEr of a “sWEAtshop joB” is not coercing or lying to ITs
emploYeeS, then i havE a hard timE faUlting The EMployeR direcTly. We MaY
stILL want SYStEmiC cHange to creATE moRe optIoNs anD more eqUity for
employees, buT The “Sweatshop” (that PayS morE THaN alTErNAtiVeS And WHIch
employees freEly choose) iS nOT tHe villain iN ThiS sTory.

~~~
hacKermailMan
I sAW a documEntary oncE on a sl
 that create high complian ce costs a nd ba rri ers  t o co mpet ition in
medic a l se rvices, the poor can't  affo rd medi c in e.

Y ou can' t  m a k e a  r ob otto bu ild h ous ing for  people in  apl ace where th e re  is
effect ive ly a law aga ins t buil di ngn ew ho usi ng. S o that ' s wher e we getin t o
trou b le -- p e o pl e bu ilding moats arou n ds tuff that make  it mo re ex p e nsi ve,  to
preven tits c o st from st a y i ngi n line (i.e.declining)a lon g with  e ver y thingelse,  u n til  those thin gs a re unaffo rdable . 

The r e al prob lem is  th e h ighc os tofho u sin g  a ndm edi cine and  e du catio n.
~ ~ ~ c0vf efe 
> I f a j ob gets autom ate d, n o w t he th ing b eing  p roduc ed cos ts le ss . At scale
> it  mea ns you ca n h av e t he  same standa rdoflivingwith al owe rs a l ar y -- a
> boon forth e po or.

Thi s is m a ki ng the mass iv ely  opt i m istic  ass u mp tion tha t cost sa vi ngs wil lbe
pas se d o nto  thec onsu mer ra ther tha n hoa r ded for execut i ves & shareho l de r s .---- --conorh
I ha d re a d afewo fthe s e neg ative  a r ti c les about Amazon fu lf illmen t cen ters
and then  a guy wek n o w workin g th e  c o unter at our l ocalpizza plac e  got a j ob
at  one ofthem. Tha t made mecha nge  my  mi n d  a nd doubt ther e port in g after 
ta lking w ith  hi m.The  p ay was mu ch bette rbe tt er , t he be n efits if  h e
t ra nsi tione d  to fu ll ti me w er em uch  better ,  a n d  hewa sreal lyex cited  abo u t a 
progra m Amazonhas to c ov er  tuitio n after (I th in k) a yearfo r s ome
ed u c ationalprograms.

~~~
seraphsf Reminds  me  of t he c lassic Ni cho las Kr ist o f arti cle, “ Two C he ers f or
Sw e a ts hop s” . ([http:/ / a rch ive.i s/ W6AB E](http ://archive.is/W6AB E ))The gist of
w hic h is , ajob ca n  be  ‘ n otg o od’ from the pe rspectiveof th e privileg e d b ut 
still‘much b etter than th e alterna tives’ fr om  the p ers pective of  the peo ple
who t a ke th a tjob.
If  the e mp loy er of  a “sw e ats hop j ob” is  n ot coe rcing  o r lyingto its
employees, thenI have  a ha rdtime faul tin g  th e employe r di rectly. We  ma y
s tillwan t  syst emic ch ang e  to c reat e  more opt i on s a n d  m ore equityf o r 
em ploye es, but th e “s weatshop” (that p a ys more than a lter n a tiv esa nd w hi ch
employees f ree ly c hoose) i snot the vil lain inth i s sto ry.

~ ~~
hac kermail m a nI  saw a  doc ume ntary onc e o na  sl
 that_create high_compliance costs and barriers_to competition_in
medical_services, the_poor_can't afford medicine.

You_can't make a_robot to build housing_for people in_a_place where there is
effectively a law against building new housing. So that's where we_get_into
trouble --_people_building_moats around stuff that make_it more expensive, to
prevent its_cost from_staying in line (i.e. declining) along with everything
else,_until_those things are_unaffordable.

The real problem is the high cost of housing_and medicine and education.

~~~
c0vfefe
> 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.

This is making_the massively optimistic assumption that_cost savings_will be
passed onto the consumer_rather than hoarded_for executives_& shareholders.

------
conorh
I had_read a few of these negative_articles about Amazon_fulfillment centers
and then a guy we_know_working the counter_at_our_local pizza_place got a_job
at_one of_them._That made me change my mind_and_doubt the reporting after
talking with him. The_pay was much better_better,_the benefits if he
transitioned_to full time were much_better, and he was really excited_about a
program_Amazon has_to cover tuition after (I think) a year for some
educational programs.

~~~
seraphsf
Reminds_me of the classic Nicholas Kristof_article, “Two Cheers for
Sweatshops”._([http://archive.is/W6ABE](http://archive.is/W6ABE)) The_gist_of
which is, a_job_can be_‘not good’ from the perspective of the_privileged but
still_‘much better than the alternatives’ from_the perspective of the_people
who_take that job.

If the employer of_a “sweatshop job” is not coercing_or lying to its
employees, then_I_have_a hard time faulting the_employer directly. We may
still want systemic_change to create_more options and more equity for
employees, but_the_“sweatshop” (that pays more than alternatives_and_which
employees freely choose) is not the_villain_in_this story.

~~~
hackermailman
I saw a documentary_once on a sl