Mechanical Turk Stations for the Urban Poor(chrismaury.com)
chrismaury.com
Mechanical Turk Stations for the Urban Poor
http://chrismaury.com/post/18320761977/mechanical-turk-stations-for-the-urban-poor
27 comments
Finally, some humanity here. Although I see that you've chosen to disguise it in a way "entrepreneurs" would understand. Market research? Alright :)
As long it makes some people think what it's like to grow up poor. Me, I would suggest learning some history and philosophy before the monumental works of the "Lean Startup methodology".
As long it makes some people think what it's like to grow up poor. Me, I would suggest learning some history and philosophy before the monumental works of the "Lean Startup methodology".
> ... then I'd suggest that we start with some customer research. Do the jobless urban poor want to stand at a terminal in the street and perform menial tasks for spare change?
In SV it's very popular to assume that people are poor because they don't want to work. To the question of what poor people would want to do, the answer is very often "who cares what they want, they're poor!" It's not this blatant -- often it's couched in statements like the ones you see here that assume that people have chosen poverty -- but that's the basic sentiment.
> Buying into this concept as a way to solve urban poverty is no different than some Marketing VP sitting in her 50th floor corner office...
Well, this is at least consistent. If you think that people have merely chosen to be poor, then you simply need to persuade them to make a different choice.
If one acknowledges that they don't know much about the lives of poor people, they should do what they would with any other domain where they lack experience -- find a domain expert. IMO, the best way to start would be to find those members of the urban poor demographic who have the intelligence and the motivation, but not the skills, to solve their own problems. Then, you can help them solve those problems.
In SV it's very popular to assume that people are poor because they don't want to work. To the question of what poor people would want to do, the answer is very often "who cares what they want, they're poor!" It's not this blatant -- often it's couched in statements like the ones you see here that assume that people have chosen poverty -- but that's the basic sentiment.
> Buying into this concept as a way to solve urban poverty is no different than some Marketing VP sitting in her 50th floor corner office...
Well, this is at least consistent. If you think that people have merely chosen to be poor, then you simply need to persuade them to make a different choice.
If one acknowledges that they don't know much about the lives of poor people, they should do what they would with any other domain where they lack experience -- find a domain expert. IMO, the best way to start would be to find those members of the urban poor demographic who have the intelligence and the motivation, but not the skills, to solve their own problems. Then, you can help them solve those problems.
In SV it's very popular to assume that people are poor because they don't want to work.
This is more or less true. Go look up labor force participation rates of the poor - most poor adults don't have a job, and aren't looking for one.
This is more or less true. Go look up labor force participation rates of the poor - most poor adults don't have a job, and aren't looking for one.
Why do you think that looking is the same as wanting?
> I think the best thing that I can say is that this experiment flies in the face of everything that pg, Steve Blank and the other leaders of Lean Startup methodology are teaching
The OP is advocating the installation of a terminal to see if the 'urban poor' use it. That sounds pretty lean to me.
The OP is advocating the installation of a terminal to see if the 'urban poor' use it. That sounds pretty lean to me.
OMG! You guys! Aside from a few, most comments here are discussing how to actually do this efficiently. I think this might be forgivable as I assume many of you are quite young, but are you really suggesting exploiting poor populations for menial work w/o social benefits, without dignity, suggesting they walk into some booth, put in a few hours of work without even the physical presence of co-workers and bosses that can appreciate their work?
Again, I'd like to attribute the responses to the commenters' young age, and I trust your good intentions, but hackers, engineers and all entrepreneurs should really learn something about work-relations, social policy and ethics.
Again, I'd like to attribute the responses to the commenters' young age, and I trust your good intentions, but hackers, engineers and all entrepreneurs should really learn something about work-relations, social policy and ethics.
are you really suggesting exploiting poor populations for menial work w/o social benefits, without dignity, suggesting they walk into some booth, put in a few hours of work without even the physical presence of co-workers and bosses that can appreciate their work?
I'll go with "yes". Doing productive work, earning money, and gaining basic computer experience would be much better for everyone involved than panhandling on the street.
In equally loaded terms, why would you deny poor people an opportunity to improve their lives?
I'll go with "yes". Doing productive work, earning money, and gaining basic computer experience would be much better for everyone involved than panhandling on the street.
In equally loaded terms, why would you deny poor people an opportunity to improve their lives?
Because this won't improve their lives one bit. It will turn them into drones working for the rich without dignity or respect. Not every transaction that is marginally beneficial to both sides is movement towards a global optimum. On the contrary, arguments like this, talking about improvement is simple "gradient descent". Instead of throwing the poor an insulting bone, using their desperation to gain beneficial work w/o treating them with dignity (benefits, appreciation), I suggest turning the bright minds of Silicon Valley for some true disruptive thinking.
Think about this: is this suggestion going to provide the poor with true social mobility? Is this something our society can be proud of - poor people working for machines, as machines and getting paid by machines? Or is this another way to maximize profit by forsaking gainful, respectful employment, that can be somehow justified by "well, they'll be slightly better off?"
Why not suggest a mechanism by which tech companies can truly offer the poor a hand that will last for generations and create a better society, one we can be truly proud of, even if it's at the cost of loss of some short-term profit? An investment in society's future, if you like. Surely this is something that will be beneficial for everyone in the long run.
Think about this: is this suggestion going to provide the poor with true social mobility? Is this something our society can be proud of - poor people working for machines, as machines and getting paid by machines? Or is this another way to maximize profit by forsaking gainful, respectful employment, that can be somehow justified by "well, they'll be slightly better off?"
Why not suggest a mechanism by which tech companies can truly offer the poor a hand that will last for generations and create a better society, one we can be truly proud of, even if it's at the cost of loss of some short-term profit? An investment in society's future, if you like. Surely this is something that will be beneficial for everyone in the long run.
Because this won't improve their lives one bit.
Proof by assertion is not terribly convincing.
Not every transaction that is marginally beneficial to both sides is movement towards a global optimum
"Marginal" is more than zero bits.
Think about this: is this suggestion going to provide the poor with true social mobility?
I could easily see that happening.
Is this something our society can be proud of - poor people working for machines, as machines and getting paid by machines?
Even in those ridiculous terms (applicable to many white collar jobs), yes, compared to common alternatives like panhandling or selling drugs.
Why not suggest a mechanism by which tech companies can truly offer the poor a hand that will last for generations and create a better society
Go for it. In the meantime, stop standing in the way of people who are trying to improve things because you don't think they're improving them enough.
Proof by assertion is not terribly convincing.
Not every transaction that is marginally beneficial to both sides is movement towards a global optimum
"Marginal" is more than zero bits.
Think about this: is this suggestion going to provide the poor with true social mobility?
I could easily see that happening.
Is this something our society can be proud of - poor people working for machines, as machines and getting paid by machines?
Even in those ridiculous terms (applicable to many white collar jobs), yes, compared to common alternatives like panhandling or selling drugs.
Why not suggest a mechanism by which tech companies can truly offer the poor a hand that will last for generations and create a better society
Go for it. In the meantime, stop standing in the way of people who are trying to improve things because you don't think they're improving them enough.
I don't consider actively exploiting the poor as "not improving their lives enough". Neither do I consider marginal benefit a positive if it comes at the cost of exploitation. Thirdly, I don't see anyone moving from selling drugs to doing menial mechanical turk work. Lastly - I'm not standing in anyone's way. By all means - go and try to turn America's poor into Silicon Valley's drones rather than invest in their future. In China's sweatshops I can at least be fairly certain that the workers are greeted with a "hello" in the morning. Perhaps someone is even concerned if they don't show up for work. If you want to build hi-tech services on the backs of people who don't get even that - go ahead. I'll be marveling at the this new turn hi-tech capitalism is taking, while sitting in my armchair sipping tea and reading Charles Dickens.
The "sweatshops" in China that you seem to criticize are the ones offering slightly better paid-jobs to the ones who have nothing at all, who live a miserable life in the countryside.
You seem to ignore that Everything derives from work. It gives the poor a way to earn a living, an activity to count on, some sense of being independent (instead of relying on welfare), and it enables them to save (even a little) money. It makes them responsible. It provides them experience that they can build on to become better at what they do and aspire for something a little more advanced. Most poor people who work do not stay at the bottom of their society for their whole life. Work is an effective social ladder, and where we stand right now is the downright proof of it.
"Exploitation" is only a matter of point of view. What you see as exploitation is not an universal, tangible truth for everyone in this world.
You seem to ignore that Everything derives from work. It gives the poor a way to earn a living, an activity to count on, some sense of being independent (instead of relying on welfare), and it enables them to save (even a little) money. It makes them responsible. It provides them experience that they can build on to become better at what they do and aspire for something a little more advanced. Most poor people who work do not stay at the bottom of their society for their whole life. Work is an effective social ladder, and where we stand right now is the downright proof of it.
"Exploitation" is only a matter of point of view. What you see as exploitation is not an universal, tangible truth for everyone in this world.
It's frustrating debating with one who employs such rhetoric:
1. "I don't consider actively exploiting the poor as "not improving their lives enough"." and "Neither do I consider marginal benefit a positive if it comes at the cost of exploitation."
You've framed the debate as "exploiting the poor" and "exploitation" yet do not give any reason for this other than an implicit claim that sub-minimum wage is exploitation. Let's say the minimum wage is $X/hr and this project allows these people to earn $(X - 0.01)/hr. Is that still exploitation? Why do you assume just because something MIGHT not be minimum wage that it's exploitation? Minimum wage and exploitation are only slightly correlated subjects.
All the original author is suggesting is to OFFER people jobs at a rate that the economy identifies as a sustainable employment opportunity. Kids selling gum at school might earn below minimum wage but it's their choice and their life to do. Nobody is FORCING anybody to take those jobs, therefore this is not exploitation and your dramatic and emotionally overloaded choice of words really does not help you make your point. You need to take a moment to define exploitation and I think in doing so you will see your argument is flawed.
2. "I don't see anyone moving from selling drugs to doing menial mechanical turk work" OK but that's your opinion and minimum wage laws block verifying what the reality of the situation is.
3. "By all means - go and try to turn America's poor into Silicon Valley's drones rather than invest in their future"
Why do you constantly resort to such emotive, overloaded language? There's no conspiracy here; nobody is trying to "turn" anybody into anything. What people ARE saying is "Hey here's a way some people can make some money, maybe some will find it acceptable" and people like you are saying "No I refuse to let anybody explore this possibility because I'm uncomfortable with a society where people are earning less than I think they should because of my beliefs about what people should earn, and I believe that my beliefs override freewill".
Notice that your argument, as far as I can tell after filtering out the emotion, is pretty much all about your beliefs about work and society, and has nothing to do with (a) the actual state of the economy at a given point in time or (b) the actual people out there who might benefit from the proposed arrangement.
1. "I don't consider actively exploiting the poor as "not improving their lives enough"." and "Neither do I consider marginal benefit a positive if it comes at the cost of exploitation."
You've framed the debate as "exploiting the poor" and "exploitation" yet do not give any reason for this other than an implicit claim that sub-minimum wage is exploitation. Let's say the minimum wage is $X/hr and this project allows these people to earn $(X - 0.01)/hr. Is that still exploitation? Why do you assume just because something MIGHT not be minimum wage that it's exploitation? Minimum wage and exploitation are only slightly correlated subjects.
All the original author is suggesting is to OFFER people jobs at a rate that the economy identifies as a sustainable employment opportunity. Kids selling gum at school might earn below minimum wage but it's their choice and their life to do. Nobody is FORCING anybody to take those jobs, therefore this is not exploitation and your dramatic and emotionally overloaded choice of words really does not help you make your point. You need to take a moment to define exploitation and I think in doing so you will see your argument is flawed.
2. "I don't see anyone moving from selling drugs to doing menial mechanical turk work" OK but that's your opinion and minimum wage laws block verifying what the reality of the situation is.
3. "By all means - go and try to turn America's poor into Silicon Valley's drones rather than invest in their future"
Why do you constantly resort to such emotive, overloaded language? There's no conspiracy here; nobody is trying to "turn" anybody into anything. What people ARE saying is "Hey here's a way some people can make some money, maybe some will find it acceptable" and people like you are saying "No I refuse to let anybody explore this possibility because I'm uncomfortable with a society where people are earning less than I think they should because of my beliefs about what people should earn, and I believe that my beliefs override freewill".
Notice that your argument, as far as I can tell after filtering out the emotion, is pretty much all about your beliefs about work and society, and has nothing to do with (a) the actual state of the economy at a given point in time or (b) the actual people out there who might benefit from the proposed arrangement.
The reason I employ "emotional rhetoric" is because most people here have employed unemotional or "rational" rhetoric. This isn't statistics. This isn't an optimization problem. What I'm trying to do is to show that when you deal with actual people, people who have so far gotten the short end of the stick at everything, people with desires, people capable of feeling pain - you must at least consider an "emotional" approach.
And I don't need to win an argument here - I've already won. The simple fact is that people earning below average (or, rather, below median) in America are worse off than almost anywhere else in the western world. And that's the majority of the population. I was simply expressing my amazement that a certain world outlook - which I'm not even trying to argue 'cause this is not the place - that has traditionally been common among certain American social groups, has taken hold of SV entrepreneurs. I find this surprising because Northern California has had, for a long time, much sympathy for the counter-culture movement and to ideas of social justice. I also find it interesting that it seems like this approach is expressed here not because of some deeply held beliefs, some ideological values, but simply because of a technical, mathematical way of looking at the world. I was amazed and saddened at the dehumanization expressed here.
Now, I wasn't trying to change anyone's mind on politics, but just in case someone was expressing his views simply because he's grown accustomed to looking at the world through equations and algorithms, I was hoping maybe my words could jar him out of his technical sleep. Saying "Hey here's a way some people can make some money, maybe some will find it acceptable" without considering whether or not the idea is ethical, whether or not it is humane, seems so... callous. Of course someone will find it acceptable - like I said someplace else, someone will find it acceptable to sell his own organs for money; someone will agree to go into slavery so that he'll have something to eat - but that doesn't make it right. And I'm not even saying you should take my definitions for right and wrong. Use your own. But the first question you should ask yourself is "is this right?" and not, "will this work?"
(All of this is not to say that I cede the "rational" argument, or agree that unregulated free-market capitalism has actual economic merit - I don't. It's just more important for me to address the lack of ethical thinking, or the precedence of economic thinking to it rather than argue economics)
And I don't need to win an argument here - I've already won. The simple fact is that people earning below average (or, rather, below median) in America are worse off than almost anywhere else in the western world. And that's the majority of the population. I was simply expressing my amazement that a certain world outlook - which I'm not even trying to argue 'cause this is not the place - that has traditionally been common among certain American social groups, has taken hold of SV entrepreneurs. I find this surprising because Northern California has had, for a long time, much sympathy for the counter-culture movement and to ideas of social justice. I also find it interesting that it seems like this approach is expressed here not because of some deeply held beliefs, some ideological values, but simply because of a technical, mathematical way of looking at the world. I was amazed and saddened at the dehumanization expressed here.
Now, I wasn't trying to change anyone's mind on politics, but just in case someone was expressing his views simply because he's grown accustomed to looking at the world through equations and algorithms, I was hoping maybe my words could jar him out of his technical sleep. Saying "Hey here's a way some people can make some money, maybe some will find it acceptable" without considering whether or not the idea is ethical, whether or not it is humane, seems so... callous. Of course someone will find it acceptable - like I said someplace else, someone will find it acceptable to sell his own organs for money; someone will agree to go into slavery so that he'll have something to eat - but that doesn't make it right. And I'm not even saying you should take my definitions for right and wrong. Use your own. But the first question you should ask yourself is "is this right?" and not, "will this work?"
(All of this is not to say that I cede the "rational" argument, or agree that unregulated free-market capitalism has actual economic merit - I don't. It's just more important for me to address the lack of ethical thinking, or the precedence of economic thinking to it rather than argue economics)
I agree with your compassion for humanity, but I'd think you're overemphasizing the benefits of having physical co-workers & a boss. There are many self-employed individuals who relish not having to deal with such things. I'd rather see emphasis on how this system would help someone improve their life & their community, instead of just being exploited by rich people in a foreign country.
You are being downvoted because most people on Hacker News disagree with you. Also, because your tone may be perceived as slightly hysterical.
I doubt young age of commenters is the reason for their stance and for many intentions are as good as they pay. Crucially, most people here imagine themselves as (future) bosses and do not empathize with the poor operating mechanical turks. Also consider that many here unconsciously are mechanical turk operators while believing they are entrepreneurs.
There are of course others here as well. But look at the brightness of your comment and you will find out who is the majority.
I doubt young age of commenters is the reason for their stance and for many intentions are as good as they pay. Crucially, most people here imagine themselves as (future) bosses and do not empathize with the poor operating mechanical turks. Also consider that many here unconsciously are mechanical turk operators while believing they are entrepreneurs.
There are of course others here as well. But look at the brightness of your comment and you will find out who is the majority.
I hope you are wrong about this. And my tone is more than slightly hysterical - I am downright panicking. If Ayn-Randian ideology has taken over the hearts of young Silicon Valley startup entrepreneurs, and if that is the current way of thinking in Northern California of all places, then we've got a problem.
But I think you're wrong. I think what we're reading here is not a heartfelt, confident business or social ideology, but a hacker's frame of mind. A hacker mostly thinks about how to do things well. Sometimes he thinks about what to do. Only rarely does he consider the question of why, in the grand scheme of things. Very few hackers consider the social ramifications of technology, and when they do, it's usually very short-term.
But I think you're wrong. I think what we're reading here is not a heartfelt, confident business or social ideology, but a hacker's frame of mind. A hacker mostly thinks about how to do things well. Sometimes he thinks about what to do. Only rarely does he consider the question of why, in the grand scheme of things. Very few hackers consider the social ramifications of technology, and when they do, it's usually very short-term.
Pretty sure every libertarian (I am not one), regardless of age, would disagree with you.
If people are willing to do the work for a given wage, the free market should be able to pay them (or so Libertarians believe).
If people are willing to do the work for a given wage, the free market should be able to pay them (or so Libertarians believe).
There's a market for everything: human organs; hit-jobs. But you know what, I'm not even arguing the merits of the free market. I'm simply amazed at the fact that most comments here simply discuss the efficiency of the process, as if this were an algorithm or a development methodology, rather than something involving real living people, and not any people, but the weakest in society.
I'd like to suggest that instead of building work booths for the poor where machines will pay them money, perhaps the big companies should do everything in their power to make sure these people have a chance at a proper education, so that some day they could have jobs that would give them some dignity. Jobs that the mechanical-turk mega-farmers would wish for their children.
I'd like to suggest that instead of building work booths for the poor where machines will pay them money, perhaps the big companies should do everything in their power to make sure these people have a chance at a proper education, so that some day they could have jobs that would give them some dignity. Jobs that the mechanical-turk mega-farmers would wish for their children.
Libertarianism would say that hit-jobs (and stolen organs) involve coercion. That is, it's not "2 consenting adults", but rather a market for doing harm on to other people and creating a "externality effect" of harm. This is similar to dumping pollutants into our air or oceans. Yes it might appear "free", but it actually does harm to 3rd parties.
In fact, I think the market for human organs is an interesting analog. Personally, I think that introducing free-market principles into organ exchange would be beneficial to all! The notion of paying someone to agree to donate their organs at the end of their life benefits all of society (see wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_donation): LIVES are saved with the greater availability of organs, and the life of the donor is improved with access to money that he/she would otherwise not have. This is not a zero-sum game in which one person must lose for another to win. A principal of economics is that through commerce/trade/exchange we both prosper! Both sides want what the other side is giving them more than what they have to give up. ie the donor wants money more than organs, and the recipient wants organs more than money. Both sides win!
I have absolutely no problem with compensating organ donors for actually helping other humans and improving society through their generous donation.
Likewise, if 2 consenting adults want to engage in a relationship in which 1 works for an agreed upon wage, and the other provides that work, I see no reason to intervene in that arrangement. As long as each party is aware of the risks and the full terms of the deal are openly on the table (ie if doing this work could be deleterious to worker for some reason and that information is not disclosed) then people should be free to engage in their course of business.
In fact, I think the market for human organs is an interesting analog. Personally, I think that introducing free-market principles into organ exchange would be beneficial to all! The notion of paying someone to agree to donate their organs at the end of their life benefits all of society (see wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_donation): LIVES are saved with the greater availability of organs, and the life of the donor is improved with access to money that he/she would otherwise not have. This is not a zero-sum game in which one person must lose for another to win. A principal of economics is that through commerce/trade/exchange we both prosper! Both sides want what the other side is giving them more than what they have to give up. ie the donor wants money more than organs, and the recipient wants organs more than money. Both sides win!
I have absolutely no problem with compensating organ donors for actually helping other humans and improving society through their generous donation.
Likewise, if 2 consenting adults want to engage in a relationship in which 1 works for an agreed upon wage, and the other provides that work, I see no reason to intervene in that arrangement. As long as each party is aware of the risks and the full terms of the deal are openly on the table (ie if doing this work could be deleterious to worker for some reason and that information is not disclosed) then people should be free to engage in their course of business.
Yeah... that would get really morbid as desperate people start to sell their organs to secure the welfare of their loved ones. Sometimes rational actors acting in their best interest is the least important part of how you model a problem.
What do they do now? You make it sound like there's a better alternative currently available!
The reason they would consider selling a FUTURE interest in their organs is because it would be the best option on the table. Since it's not currently available as an option, they must be choosing considerably worse option now (which is the best currently available option).
How is your alternative more just, more fair, better?
---------------- EDIT ----------------
Imagine YOUR loved one received a liver/heart/kidney in this manner, thereby saving his/her life. And in so doing it DID improve the welfare of someone loved by the donor allowing him/her to get a better education, get better housing, or something else worthwhile.
What is so horrible about that? Your insurance company would cover it and it would make the world a BETTER PLACE for everyone. By the way, the surgeon gets paid a lot of money for a complex procedure like organ transplant; what's wrong with a donor getting a tiny fraction of that for his/her contribution providing the amazing, wonderful gift of life?
The reason they would consider selling a FUTURE interest in their organs is because it would be the best option on the table. Since it's not currently available as an option, they must be choosing considerably worse option now (which is the best currently available option).
How is your alternative more just, more fair, better?
---------------- EDIT ----------------
Imagine YOUR loved one received a liver/heart/kidney in this manner, thereby saving his/her life. And in so doing it DID improve the welfare of someone loved by the donor allowing him/her to get a better education, get better housing, or something else worthwhile.
What is so horrible about that? Your insurance company would cover it and it would make the world a BETTER PLACE for everyone. By the way, the surgeon gets paid a lot of money for a complex procedure like organ transplant; what's wrong with a donor getting a tiny fraction of that for his/her contribution providing the amazing, wonderful gift of life?
Well, without regulation it won't necessarily be the _FUTURE_ interest in selling an organ. As I said, desperation can make a person do crazy things, and there's more to consent whether there's a contract involved and no guns pointed to anyone's head.
And while it creates an incentive to donate organs, it also allows wealthier people to hoard them. Remember that the circumstances which allow the organs of a person to be successfully extracted for transplant are pretty rare[1], they essentially have to die in a hospital of brain death with their organs intact, so even if more people are willing and legally bound, offer may still fail to satisfy demand, only this time it will be mostly a matter of who has more money. And that's not exactly fair.
1. http://www.organtransplants.org/understanding/death/
And while it creates an incentive to donate organs, it also allows wealthier people to hoard them. Remember that the circumstances which allow the organs of a person to be successfully extracted for transplant are pretty rare[1], they essentially have to die in a hospital of brain death with their organs intact, so even if more people are willing and legally bound, offer may still fail to satisfy demand, only this time it will be mostly a matter of who has more money. And that's not exactly fair.
1. http://www.organtransplants.org/understanding/death/
By the way, as a separate issue; if people were allowed to bid for organs. And assuming you're right that rich people horded them, then wouldn't the supply rise up to meet that new demand? Wouldn't more people sign up to be organ donors? Wouldn't we reach equilibrium where the supply side matched the demand side?
If poor people were getting fabulously wealth from committing to donate organs, and more lives were saved, wouldn't we eventually reach equilibrium? The 1% only need so many organs....
Poor people with money in their pockets and less organ shortage wouldn't be a horrible scenario. Maybe it would force the real hard work of cloning organs and improving a unsatisfactory system.
I must say, if it became an outright bidding system some people who society might say are less deserving than someone else might benefit. But that happens already! Look at Mickey Mantle who received a liver after a lifetime of alcoholism (and died soon thereafter). Or Steve Jobs who shopped around for the best region to receive a new organ (he's not FROM Tennessee after all...).
So please tell me, how would a MORE market based system be significantly worse? It seems like we have the worst of everything right now in our pursuit of the idealistic fantasy that the system treats everyone equally and that organ donation should be a purely altruistic gesture.
I must say, if it became an outright bidding system some people who society might say are less deserving than someone else might benefit. But that happens already! Look at Mickey Mantle who received a liver after a lifetime of alcoholism (and died soon thereafter). Or Steve Jobs who shopped around for the best region to receive a new organ (he's not FROM Tennessee after all...).
So please tell me, how would a MORE market based system be significantly worse? It seems like we have the worst of everything right now in our pursuit of the idealistic fantasy that the system treats everyone equally and that organ donation should be a purely altruistic gesture.
I agree with everything you're saying (except the part about hording) perhaps....
My expectation is that donors would be paid based on expected value, which is how (I believe), the issue is being framed in debates.
ie assume there's a 1% probability that potential donor will be a.) young enough b.) die under right circumstances.
Then we should offer that potential donor 1% of the expected value of his/her organs (ie if organs are worth $100k then we should offer $1k).
Obviously these are all made up numbers. But the idea of paying up front based on expected value makes sense to me in theory.
My expectation is that donors would be paid based on expected value, which is how (I believe), the issue is being framed in debates.
ie assume there's a 1% probability that potential donor will be a.) young enough b.) die under right circumstances.
Then we should offer that potential donor 1% of the expected value of his/her organs (ie if organs are worth $100k then we should offer $1k).
Obviously these are all made up numbers. But the idea of paying up front based on expected value makes sense to me in theory.
Well, I think that the problem with what you're saying is the definition of "consent". Suppose there existed a part of society that was born to people of means, or at least - connections. Then, suppose there was another part that was born to generations of neglect, and even abuse by the other part (I think that in the US, abuse had taken some extreme forms at various times in history). Now, I'm not so sure that a person coming from the disadvantaged part of society can actually give his free "consent" to sell a kidney to someone coming from the well-connected part. Sure, both side may want what the other side offers, but I doubt the freedom of such a decision. There are many forms of coercion - some of them very subtle yet very powerful.
EDIT: Though, again, my main complaint isn't about one opinion or another regarding this issue, but about the lack of discussion of what is, in-fact, the real issue here. Instead, I see commenters suggesting ways to deal with vandalism or "crap data". To me it sounds like discussing the (efficient) mechanics of, well, I don't want to give extreme historical analogies here which do not apply, but the point is that people are quick to suggest ways for improving a process before giving serious, and I mean serious, thought to the question of whether this process should exist in the first place, and what could its effect be on the minds and souls of the people its targeting.
EDIT: Though, again, my main complaint isn't about one opinion or another regarding this issue, but about the lack of discussion of what is, in-fact, the real issue here. Instead, I see commenters suggesting ways to deal with vandalism or "crap data". To me it sounds like discussing the (efficient) mechanics of, well, I don't want to give extreme historical analogies here which do not apply, but the point is that people are quick to suggest ways for improving a process before giving serious, and I mean serious, thought to the question of whether this process should exist in the first place, and what could its effect be on the minds and souls of the people its targeting.
Ah, now we arrive at the real nut of anti-Libertarianism: paternalism. The notion that somehow adults are not capable of making their own decisions. This is our fundamental disagreement.
To me, impoverished, indigent people struggling to make ends meet are fully capable of making their own decisions. People fondly recall stories of their immigrant ancestors working hard and struggling in order to provide a better life for their children. Why do we want to curtail the ability of today's poor from making the same decisions?
You're deciding for them that it's better to stay poor than whatever alternative they might choose for themselves (in an effort to climb out of poverty) because you know better than them.
I will admit, there are roles for government regulation in the marketplace. I simply do not know enough about the chicken I buy at the grocery to make an informed choice. I appreciate the health inspectors, organic labels, and other regulations that facilitate a free, fair, and efficient marketplace in which I do not need to know the farmer to be confident my chicken will not poison me.
However, I do not think lack of open (and understandable) information is the issue in this particular case.
Regarding your last point, I agree with you. The more interesting aspect here is not the implementation details, but rather the questions you're raising of free enterprise, the freedom to work, and the freedom to engage in free & fair commerce of your choosing.
I will admit, there are roles for government regulation in the marketplace. I simply do not know enough about the chicken I buy at the grocery to make an informed choice. I appreciate the health inspectors, organic labels, and other regulations that facilitate a free, fair, and efficient marketplace in which I do not need to know the farmer to be confident my chicken will not poison me.
However, I do not think lack of open (and understandable) information is the issue in this particular case.
Regarding your last point, I agree with you. The more interesting aspect here is not the implementation details, but rather the questions you're raising of free enterprise, the freedom to work, and the freedom to engage in free & fair commerce of your choosing.
Sorry, buddy. What you're describing isn't libertarianism. Libertarianism must first of all advocate true liberty, including liberty from exploitation, and if it's not the government's job to enforce this freedom, then you must advocate the exploited's right to fight the exploitation, even through violent means, because exploitation is a form of violence as well. That people under extreme duress do not really have the option of a truly free choice is not paternalism - it's a fact.
What you're describing isn't libertarianism. It's simply a way to preserve power in the hands of those who already possess it. You can't condone the government's right to legislate laws that permit economic exploitation but prohibit violent opposition.
What you're describing isn't libertarianism. It's simply a way to preserve power in the hands of those who already possess it. You can't condone the government's right to legislate laws that permit economic exploitation but prohibit violent opposition.
Define "exploitation", please. Words are important here.
Exploitation: taking advantage of the other's misery to further your own goals.
If there were no people who are so poor as to need what meager pay the future mechanical-turk farmers are willing to give, those farmers wouldn't close down their services - they would either settle for less profit, or find another long term solution. This option exists only because of some people's hardships, and it's more profitable for the farmers to take advantage of this option, namely, people's misery, hence - exploitation.
If there were no people who are so poor as to need what meager pay the future mechanical-turk farmers are willing to give, those farmers wouldn't close down their services - they would either settle for less profit, or find another long term solution. This option exists only because of some people's hardships, and it's more profitable for the farmers to take advantage of this option, namely, people's misery, hence - exploitation.
Thanks for defining what you mean by exploitation. Now, exploitation can only exist in a market where workers have no choice but to accept the conditions of a single employer. This is typically the case when you are a slave for someone else and you have lost your freedom completely.
However, the have-nots (who are willing to work) can probably find several occupations, from different employers. They will have some range of choice concerning the salaries, the conditions and so on. Maybe not a large choice, but some choice. And one thing is clear: the less minimum wage there is, the more choice of occupations there will be, since there will be more employers generating occupations where profit can be made, since you lower the costs of labor at first.
Those occupations would not exist if it is easier or more profitable for people to stay on welfare.
And as it has been demonstrated in so many cases/countries, the longer one stays on welfare, the most likely one is not going to look for a job, welfare is actually a promoter of misery in the long term, especially for those who are at the very bottom, since they get no real incentive of getting out of it.
In a sense, politicians are guilty of exploitation as well, based on your definition. They take advantage of some voters' misery to promise them continuous welfare for which they are not responsible to pay for, and they further their own goals by getting rich in the process.
But, to come back on "exploitation" again. You are considering that is is a zero-sum game, basically. One, the exploiter, is gaining something while the exploited is losing. But economics almost never work that way. Both employer and employee have something to gain out of it. Both profit from the situation. The Employer makes money, can extend his business and ends up needing more people in his payroll. The Employee makes enough money to survive, has an occupation and has a social activity within society - they build relationship/reputation and somehow experience. They may not be making much monetary profit, but they are still gaining something out of it.
Please do not forget that all people who lived before us had to go through misery before reaching nowadays' living standards. If you come back a hundred years ago, then you may well consider that everyone then was being "exploited", but that is not how they would see themselves at the time.
However, the have-nots (who are willing to work) can probably find several occupations, from different employers. They will have some range of choice concerning the salaries, the conditions and so on. Maybe not a large choice, but some choice. And one thing is clear: the less minimum wage there is, the more choice of occupations there will be, since there will be more employers generating occupations where profit can be made, since you lower the costs of labor at first.
Those occupations would not exist if it is easier or more profitable for people to stay on welfare.
And as it has been demonstrated in so many cases/countries, the longer one stays on welfare, the most likely one is not going to look for a job, welfare is actually a promoter of misery in the long term, especially for those who are at the very bottom, since they get no real incentive of getting out of it.
In a sense, politicians are guilty of exploitation as well, based on your definition. They take advantage of some voters' misery to promise them continuous welfare for which they are not responsible to pay for, and they further their own goals by getting rich in the process.
But, to come back on "exploitation" again. You are considering that is is a zero-sum game, basically. One, the exploiter, is gaining something while the exploited is losing. But economics almost never work that way. Both employer and employee have something to gain out of it. Both profit from the situation. The Employer makes money, can extend his business and ends up needing more people in his payroll. The Employee makes enough money to survive, has an occupation and has a social activity within society - they build relationship/reputation and somehow experience. They may not be making much monetary profit, but they are still gaining something out of it.
Please do not forget that all people who lived before us had to go through misery before reaching nowadays' living standards. If you come back a hundred years ago, then you may well consider that everyone then was being "exploited", but that is not how they would see themselves at the time.
By your logic, pharmaceutical companies are exploiting cancer patients.
Patients with horrible, painful, fatal diseases are certainly miserable. Pharmaceutical companies are certainly looking to further their own goals through the development and sale of life saving drugs.
Patients with horrible, painful, fatal diseases are certainly miserable. Pharmaceutical companies are certainly looking to further their own goals through the development and sale of life saving drugs.
[deleted]
lol, you must be in lala land. There are millions of poeple in the United States of America that live in Third World Country like conditions. Unless you're willing to empty your bank account and help them out, this is way it is. That's how the USA got started, that's how China is getting started, that's how Dubai got started. That's reality. The world is not perfect, a shitty job is better than no job.
Sure. Pretty soon I bet we'll hear some suggestions - all backed up by hard data, mind you - to reinstate slavery, only this time around it will be voluntary. After all, slave owners fed and clothed their slaves. It will certainly be an improvement over the way some people are living now, so that's a win-win, right? Then some people will say that slavery is wrong, plain wrong, whether it's voluntary or not, and whether it is beneficial to the slaves or not, only to be rebuffed by those in this forum who'll say there's simply not enough evidence to support the necessity of ethics, and others will say: well, that's just the way of the world.
Until that happens, we have before us the suggestion to build working-booths for the poor, where they can simply walk in and work for us, and get paid directly by a money dispenser so that we won't even have to see them or talk to them. And they won't even have to commute - we'll build those hi-tech sweatshops right in their slums. We won't even know their names, and if one of them gets sick - well, someone else will take his place and we won't even have to know about it because we can't really be bothered by poor people and their problems. They should be thankful that we need cheap labor so much that we're even willing to employ them (as long as they don't have to come into the office) - it's certainly better than whatever they must be doing now; selling drugs, probably - after all, that's what poor people do, right? All we have to think about now is how to prevent them from cheating us and stealing our money.
How come people are so sure they can revolutionize the world with some stupid web or mobile app, sure that they can disrupt the market and unseat market leaders, but when it comes to social issues some of those very same people sound like slaves to power themselves? How come hackers who are supposedly able to "think outside the box" sound like old, bitter, fatalist, soulless conservatives?
Until that happens, we have before us the suggestion to build working-booths for the poor, where they can simply walk in and work for us, and get paid directly by a money dispenser so that we won't even have to see them or talk to them. And they won't even have to commute - we'll build those hi-tech sweatshops right in their slums. We won't even know their names, and if one of them gets sick - well, someone else will take his place and we won't even have to know about it because we can't really be bothered by poor people and their problems. They should be thankful that we need cheap labor so much that we're even willing to employ them (as long as they don't have to come into the office) - it's certainly better than whatever they must be doing now; selling drugs, probably - after all, that's what poor people do, right? All we have to think about now is how to prevent them from cheating us and stealing our money.
How come people are so sure they can revolutionize the world with some stupid web or mobile app, sure that they can disrupt the market and unseat market leaders, but when it comes to social issues some of those very same people sound like slaves to power themselves? How come hackers who are supposedly able to "think outside the box" sound like old, bitter, fatalist, soulless conservatives?
I understand your concern and it's really nice to know there's warm hearted people like you out there. But you're either a perfectionist, or have no contact or experience with anyone living in poverty. Keeping people who are impoverished out of trouble and giving them a job no matter how demeaning is the most important first step. Believe me, I live in St. Louis, We're tied with Detroit for having the most violent crime in the whole United States. Poor people living the ghetto are not all the "poor souls being taken advantage of" that you think they are. Those people need discipline, a job, and ANY kind of income. No one will hire them for a reason. They're not just well behaved people sitting around hoping for a miracle. They have serious behavioral problems that really hurt their ability to have ANY kind of job. And a mechanical Turk solution is the last hope for many of them.
Also, in your attempt to achieve "perfect" you will end up achieving nothing.
I understand your thought process and it DOES make sense but we are not living in a perfect world, we are living in capitalism. And if you don't pay poor people in America a few pennies to type in "cat" next to a picture of a cat, that business owner will go to another country and get them to type "cat" next to a picture of a cat.
In the perfect world this wouldn't be an issue, there would be a world wide minimum wage but there isn't. So we have to stick with what works, not what's perfect. Not what's right. Not what's correct. But what works at the moment. That's what the world was built on.
Also, in your attempt to achieve "perfect" you will end up achieving nothing.
I understand your thought process and it DOES make sense but we are not living in a perfect world, we are living in capitalism. And if you don't pay poor people in America a few pennies to type in "cat" next to a picture of a cat, that business owner will go to another country and get them to type "cat" next to a picture of a cat.
In the perfect world this wouldn't be an issue, there would be a world wide minimum wage but there isn't. So we have to stick with what works, not what's perfect. Not what's right. Not what's correct. But what works at the moment. That's what the world was built on.
...to reinstate slavery, only this time around it will be voluntary.
Go look up the definition of slavery. Your post is internally contradictory.
Go look up the definition of slavery. Your post is internally contradictory.
Even if entered into voluntarily, without an opportunity to exit slavery is still the correct term.
As far as I'm aware, to exit the turk-booth you simply need to click "logout". Has someone proposed something different?
"found that you can make about $7/ hour."
As someone who turks occasionally, you can't consistently make $7 an hour unless you have some skill that you could probably use on the job marketplace. $3-$4 is more like it.
As someone who turks occasionally, you can't consistently make $7 an hour unless you have some skill that you could probably use on the job marketplace. $3-$4 is more like it.
I can confirm that. The article he cites to support the claim (from 2009) indicates the author made $4 off a 350-500 word article, and $3 for a product review. Based on my experience, those went for about $1.50 and $0.50 as of about a year ago.
$3/hr on Turk is pretty good, and you need some education and diligence to do it.
$3/hr on Turk is pretty good, and you need some education and diligence to do it.
Mechanical Turk takes up to 30 days to approve payment for any task, so instant payment is out of the question.
Having a terminal where someone can sit for hours on end being the same place as a cash dispenser isn't the best idea. The users would probably be better off breaking into it. They need to be separated.
Perhaps a better solution would be to start a sweat shop full of terminals where the sweatshop owner pays them on approved tasks, after taking a cut.
Having a terminal where someone can sit for hours on end being the same place as a cash dispenser isn't the best idea. The users would probably be better off breaking into it. They need to be separated.
Perhaps a better solution would be to start a sweat shop full of terminals where the sweatshop owner pays them on approved tasks, after taking a cut.
These exist in China and India.
I like how everyone's discussing the right and wrong of it, weather it would work or not. A true entreprenuer would ignore all that and just try it anyway. We can talk about this till the world ends but at the end of the day, people much smarter than us have made predictions in all sorts of industries and been outsmarted by 2 guys in a garage who tried something crazy that should not have worked.
I say go for it.
I say go for it.
I will do him one better. How about he opens a storefront with locked down machines that do nothing but mechanical Turk and rents them out for 1 an hour. Maybe wow gold farming .
Anyone have an concerns about the ethics of this? On one had 6 net is better than 0, on the other hand it is fairly predatory.
Anyone have an concerns about the ethics of this? On one had 6 net is better than 0, on the other hand it is fairly predatory.
I suspect panhandlers make more than $7/hour, so for them to stop panhandling and start using a mechanical turk station would be a pay cut.
This is very similar to what Samasource (http://samasource.org/) does except in a different demographic of poverty (in third world countries). The general idea is that in many places, such as refugee camps, no one has any money and there really aren't any jobs to act as segues to help people rise up out of poverty, if you build computer clusters in these areas, they can do mechanical turk style work, make a lot more money than they could otherwise and be supervised such that quality can be more controlled than a bunch of random people on the internet. Unfortunately they run on a different proprietary alternative to Mechanical Turk (presumably with some tweaks to fit their model).
This won't work, the wage rates on Mechanical Turk for unskilled, low motivated users are too low. I previously worked for a microfinance bank in the Philippines where we employed staff at a little over the minimum wage there which was $5 per day. While we were getting ready for a new product launch I had some staff we couldn't use yet, and seeing they all had computers and internet connection ran a small experiment on Mechanical Turk. They averaged $5-10 per day in income so I stopped it after a month.
There were several problems: 1. Many of the more valuable task required you to meet certain 'skill' levels which these staff didn't 2. Motivation was a huge problem as spending hours per day clicking on images with people or editing text you don't understand was very dull 3. We had problems with internet bandwidth being too slow to allow running through tasks rapidly
It was a pity this experiment failed as it would have been a great way to scale up and create income opportunities for some very destitute people.
There were several problems: 1. Many of the more valuable task required you to meet certain 'skill' levels which these staff didn't 2. Motivation was a huge problem as spending hours per day clicking on images with people or editing text you don't understand was very dull 3. We had problems with internet bandwidth being too slow to allow running through tasks rapidly
It was a pity this experiment failed as it would have been a great way to scale up and create income opportunities for some very destitute people.
For better or worse, you're likely to get better results to your work requests by putting these same devices in chosen offshore locations; you're arbitraging median-skill median-lifestyle foreigners in lower cost of living areas versus lower-quartile lifestyle and limited-skill Americans.
Globalization is not friendly to the homeless and mentally ill. This proposal may buoy up some folks who have fallen through the cracks, but there are a number of other social safety nets (a la worker retraining) that offer that same sort of chance to those down on their luck but still able to turn around from a bad situation or bad break.
If you are not able to read coherently or quickly - this doesn't necessarily mean uneducated, it could simply be crippling dyslexia - this doesn't help you. And if you are suffering from drug addiction or mental illness or even poor lifestyle choices, this may be significantly less advantageous and doable than panhandling.
Globalization is not friendly to the homeless and mentally ill. This proposal may buoy up some folks who have fallen through the cracks, but there are a number of other social safety nets (a la worker retraining) that offer that same sort of chance to those down on their luck but still able to turn around from a bad situation or bad break.
If you are not able to read coherently or quickly - this doesn't necessarily mean uneducated, it could simply be crippling dyslexia - this doesn't help you. And if you are suffering from drug addiction or mental illness or even poor lifestyle choices, this may be significantly less advantageous and doable than panhandling.
This is a non-starter for several reasons, mostly relating to spam.
First, you can't just give people cash. They will immediately turn to spamming, and you'll get crap data. You need to do statistics, comparing turks to other turks, and only pay the ones who don't spam. It's highly likely you can't do this in realtime.
Second, you need to track the identity of your turks. If worker X is known not to be a spammer, then you want to assign work to X preferentially. Similarly, if worker Y is a known spammer, you want to refuse him work.
Third, most poor people are not working and are not looking for work. Only 30% or so of poor adults are in the labor force at all. Why would they decide to start working at a mechanical turk station when they seem to have little desire to work anyplace else?
First, you can't just give people cash. They will immediately turn to spamming, and you'll get crap data. You need to do statistics, comparing turks to other turks, and only pay the ones who don't spam. It's highly likely you can't do this in realtime.
Second, you need to track the identity of your turks. If worker X is known not to be a spammer, then you want to assign work to X preferentially. Similarly, if worker Y is a known spammer, you want to refuse him work.
Third, most poor people are not working and are not looking for work. Only 30% or so of poor adults are in the labor force at all. Why would they decide to start working at a mechanical turk station when they seem to have little desire to work anyplace else?
"most poor people are not working and are not looking for work. Only 30% or so of poor adults are in the labor force at all. Why would they decide to start working at a mechanical turk station when they seem to have little desire to work anyplace else?"
just because somebody is not looking for a structured job, doesn't mean they won't do tasks for money. think about the homeless guy who wanders around with his shopping cart collecting discarded cans all day. the only social issue i see with a turk kiosk is that it would essentially be a "do things in exchange for drugs" terminal.
just because somebody is not looking for a structured job, doesn't mean they won't do tasks for money. think about the homeless guy who wanders around with his shopping cart collecting discarded cans all day. the only social issue i see with a turk kiosk is that it would essentially be a "do things in exchange for drugs" terminal.
It is not a non-starter for those reasons, it may just require some modification if they become problems or if it is deemed they are obstacles too big to even try to overcome.
When getting instant, reliable cash is the result, people will jump through an enormous number of hoops - and even pay money themselves the for opportunity.
For instance, you could require users to create an account on mturk and/or w/ the mturk shop so they can be tracked. If it is simple to do and prompted it should be fast an easy. If they can't even figure this out, they probably aren't qualified to be doing the work anyway.
When getting instant, reliable cash is the result, people will jump through an enormous number of hoops - and even pay money themselves the for opportunity.
For instance, you could require users to create an account on mturk and/or w/ the mturk shop so they can be tracked. If it is simple to do and prompted it should be fast an easy. If they can't even figure this out, they probably aren't qualified to be doing the work anyway.
It's been done (though instead of money, candy and instead of the urban poor, UC Berkeley CS students):
http://hci.berkeley.edu/cs260-fall10/images/b/ba/FinalPaper-...
http://hci.berkeley.edu/cs260-fall10/images/b/ba/FinalPaper-...
That is actually brilliant! I was thinking about something similar, how maybe a poor country could create jobs for its citizens online (and they'd be happy with much less than $7/hour). But this is actually a great idea for poor people in any country...
I'm surprised that there isn't better translation to "minority" languages.
I suggest you find out how much someone makes pan-handling per hour. You may be shocked ...
This would be a great kickstarter project. You may want to modify it though so the station just prints a check or some other instrument other than cash or you will end up with a lot of broken Mechanical Turk Stations.
Yea, broken machines or people getting mugged right after cashing out are both concerns. But the people who would benefit most from something like this would be least likely to have a bank account.
Tons of businesses cash checks without a bank account. Another concern is kiosk hacking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSu8z3vrfcY
The kiosks actually coming up missing would be a bigger concern than hacking.
[deleted]
Half-baked adaptations:
Combine with a Vegas pokie/slot machine. Complete menial hits in exchange for a few more cents to play.
Or combine with vending machines. You want that can of Coke? Pay by categorising 30-40 photos quickly.
Combine with a Vegas pokie/slot machine. Complete menial hits in exchange for a few more cents to play.
Or combine with vending machines. You want that can of Coke? Pay by categorising 30-40 photos quickly.
Be good if Amazon themselves got behind something like this, by providing the banking and payment infrastructure. They already issue credit cards, they could instead issue debit cards and directly pay into those. Would eliminate the need for a cash machine on the terminal, although the absurd ATM fees in the US might make it less viable I guess. I assume there are no charges for using debit cards for small transactions in the US (I live in the UK)?
This sounds like the type of idea that Thiel would be into. I applaud your creativity and these discussions regarding minimum wage are surprisingly pertinent.
What if the person doing the Turking was submitting crap data? It seems like you'd have to wait at least a couple days in order for the data to be validated.
Other platforms built on turk, such as crowdflower, have systems in place to assess accuracy. Another turk worker checks the quality of the work, or 3 workers do a task, and the best, as judged by a different set of workers, is given a bonus.
I can see one advantage to this, is that the poor don't have any computer skills, and this may give them basic familiarity with using websites. Although I imagine there would have to be a trainer present at all times to help when they get stuck.
A more beneficial concept for the poor is microlending, helping the poor in third-world countries start their own businesses.
A more beneficial concept for the poor is microlending, helping the poor in third-world countries start their own businesses.
The problem with a "solution" like this is same as the problem that the minium wage presents: it is insufficient to live on, and less than the value of social services benefits.
If you want to magically improve the plight of the poor, make cheap housing available in urban areas without a qualification process (ie. Section 8, public housing)
If you want to magically improve the plight of the poor, make cheap housing available in urban areas without a qualification process (ie. Section 8, public housing)
What about paywithatweet repurposed so you pay for digital goods with some Turking? Categorise 50 images and get your favourite local band's latest MP3. $1.90 to the band, $0.10 to the intermediary as their cut.
Pretty sure people who work for $1/hr don't want to spend it on mp3s.
I'm not talking about the less fortunate here, but adapting the Turk idea to something else half-baked.
I could categorise 50 images in 2-3 minutes. It'd take me 1-2 minutes to get out my wallet, get the right credit card and enter the info if I were to pay manually.
I ran the idea past two employees (neither homeless...) who both seemed to think they'd consider a quick spot of Turking in exchange for a digital good.
I could categorise 50 images in 2-3 minutes. It'd take me 1-2 minutes to get out my wallet, get the right credit card and enter the info if I were to pay manually.
I ran the idea past two employees (neither homeless...) who both seemed to think they'd consider a quick spot of Turking in exchange for a digital good.
I believe that captchabot and services alike have already successfully implemented this idea.
For all the success that micro-lending has had in India and other countries, we haven’t really seen those benefits in American Urban areas.
I thought the USA had "micro-lending", but they were called "payday loans"?
I thought the USA had "micro-lending", but they were called "payday loans"?
Payday lenders have a significantly higher interest rate - on the order of 500-2000% of the principle per year. The purpose of it is to put the screws on people who aren't able to get loans elsewhere.
Micro lending has more of a humanitarian goal - most organizations tend to lend at reasonable rates (3-15%/year).
Micro lending has more of a humanitarian goal - most organizations tend to lend at reasonable rates (3-15%/year).
Those organizations lend to local "bankers" who lend out at higher rates to customers.
Payday shops charge reasonable fees per loan, the same fees that all vendors and governments charge for you hanging on to money they want from you. The problem is that payday loan customers get trapped into taking excessive numbers of loans, multiplying fees.
Payday shops charge reasonable fees per loan, the same fees that all vendors and governments charge for you hanging on to money they want from you. The problem is that payday loan customers get trapped into taking excessive numbers of loans, multiplying fees.
With all due respect, payday shops do not charge "reasonable" fees, unless your definition of reasonable includes amounts higher than 100% APR.
It should be noted that ordinarily vendors and governments do have reasonable late fees(certainly much less than one from payday shop). I do not remember paying more than 24% when I run late on some Accounts Payable when I run my shop at the turn of the millennium. Maybe it is now normal for vendors to ask for 100+% when a 30day net invoice runs late, who knows?
It is when a vendor is about to deny service completely(ie pay $50 to reconnect electric utility), then a payday loan becomes a relatively reasonable option.
There are a multitude of factors which go behind the rates(I am bundling in all of the fees into catch all rate) that payday shops charge:
* Likelihood of borrower to repay * Ability of borrower to do simple math * Human psychology (goes with the simple math to calculate rate from fees) * Demand from borrowers
Overall, payday shops charge more than regular lending institutions because they should(higher risk and some expenses). They also raise their effective rate beyond their "should rate" because they can.
Their customers are not comparison shopping between 240% APR and 300% APR. I would argue that it should be made easier for their customers to do so, but that is another discussion.
It should be noted that ordinarily vendors and governments do have reasonable late fees(certainly much less than one from payday shop). I do not remember paying more than 24% when I run late on some Accounts Payable when I run my shop at the turn of the millennium. Maybe it is now normal for vendors to ask for 100+% when a 30day net invoice runs late, who knows?
It is when a vendor is about to deny service completely(ie pay $50 to reconnect electric utility), then a payday loan becomes a relatively reasonable option.
There are a multitude of factors which go behind the rates(I am bundling in all of the fees into catch all rate) that payday shops charge:
* Likelihood of borrower to repay * Ability of borrower to do simple math * Human psychology (goes with the simple math to calculate rate from fees) * Demand from borrowers
Overall, payday shops charge more than regular lending institutions because they should(higher risk and some expenses). They also raise their effective rate beyond their "should rate" because they can.
Their customers are not comparison shopping between 240% APR and 300% APR. I would argue that it should be made easier for their customers to do so, but that is another discussion.
The 3%→15% is what you, the investor (source of capital) get. Micro lending gives that to local lenders who charge high rates.
What this article is effectively advocating, but can't or won't say outright, is that America needs the ability to pay people less than the minimum wage.
Someone working all day at mechanical turk, is likely to fall below the federal minimum wage rate in terms of what they're pulling down per hour. Is it ok for companies to utilize mass scale labor at what becomes in reality a sub minimum wage rate? Particularly if mechanical turk stations were to become wide spread.
Obviously mechanical turk is a per unit pay system, not a job with an hourly pay rate. However, if you're doing it full time, I call bullshit on that difference. If you had 100,000 people working on mechanical turk 40 hours per week, making $6 per hour, those are very much jobs paying sub minimum wage.
It would be no different than if a thousand companies banded together to source labor below minimum wage by paying per task, and sharing that labor around rather than employing each laborer in a "job" (eg in a metro area with high population density). Those companies would be paying for net full time labor, while evading the minimum wage responsibility.
One solution to this legal boundary, would be to require that mechanical turk style tasks pay at least equivalent to minimum wage based on the time they take. I expect in any large scale adoption of mechanical turk, this issue will jump to the forefront.
Someone working all day at mechanical turk, is likely to fall below the federal minimum wage rate in terms of what they're pulling down per hour. Is it ok for companies to utilize mass scale labor at what becomes in reality a sub minimum wage rate? Particularly if mechanical turk stations were to become wide spread.
Obviously mechanical turk is a per unit pay system, not a job with an hourly pay rate. However, if you're doing it full time, I call bullshit on that difference. If you had 100,000 people working on mechanical turk 40 hours per week, making $6 per hour, those are very much jobs paying sub minimum wage.
It would be no different than if a thousand companies banded together to source labor below minimum wage by paying per task, and sharing that labor around rather than employing each laborer in a "job" (eg in a metro area with high population density). Those companies would be paying for net full time labor, while evading the minimum wage responsibility.
One solution to this legal boundary, would be to require that mechanical turk style tasks pay at least equivalent to minimum wage based on the time they take. I expect in any large scale adoption of mechanical turk, this issue will jump to the forefront.
Minimum wage laws destroy jobs and reduce overall welfare; they should be repealed rather than extended to novel business arrangements.
Minimum wages are implemented with noble motivations, but are based on a broken mental model, where the edict alone can lift everyone who would have made less up to the new statutory minimum.
In fact, many of the people who would be employed at lower wages aren't (yet) productive enough to justify a higher wage. An employer will pick a mix other adaptations rather than simply 'the same number of employees at a higher cost' once the wage floor is enforced. (These might include shorter opening hours, more automation, a few higher-paid workers replacing many lower-paid workers, longer waiting lines, less customer service, less attention to cleaning/inventory, and outsourcing work to other lower-cost entities or countries.)
These dynamic adaptations leave a few people bumped up to the higher minimum, but more left completely unemployed, idle and dependent on other social assistance. They're not building work habits or a work history that would put them on the path to much higher wages.
Even if we wanted, as a society, to ensure a certain minimum wage, why would we make the responsibility for paying it fall solely on those particular companies and industries that can best utilize inexperienced and low-skilled labor? Their manufacturing and simple services fill a important role, in the goods they provide and the meaningful productive work they offer those without other skills. By making them and them alone face this costly extra non-market constraint on hiring, they become disadvantaged and shrink, relative to other sectors and overseas competitors.
It would be like deciding "every low-income family requires a computer", but rather than buying it out of common public funds, making it a legal requirement for just the domestic computer industry to provide free computers, out of their own revenues. Would that properly value the exact thing you want to happen – more computer production – or impair it by making it less profitable than other uses of the same talent/capital? The same goes with employment opportunities for the low-skilled. The minimum wage has been thinning such domestic opportunities out, for decades, rather than expanding them. Intended to reduce income disparities, it's increasing them.
Minimum wages are implemented with noble motivations, but are based on a broken mental model, where the edict alone can lift everyone who would have made less up to the new statutory minimum.
In fact, many of the people who would be employed at lower wages aren't (yet) productive enough to justify a higher wage. An employer will pick a mix other adaptations rather than simply 'the same number of employees at a higher cost' once the wage floor is enforced. (These might include shorter opening hours, more automation, a few higher-paid workers replacing many lower-paid workers, longer waiting lines, less customer service, less attention to cleaning/inventory, and outsourcing work to other lower-cost entities or countries.)
These dynamic adaptations leave a few people bumped up to the higher minimum, but more left completely unemployed, idle and dependent on other social assistance. They're not building work habits or a work history that would put them on the path to much higher wages.
Even if we wanted, as a society, to ensure a certain minimum wage, why would we make the responsibility for paying it fall solely on those particular companies and industries that can best utilize inexperienced and low-skilled labor? Their manufacturing and simple services fill a important role, in the goods they provide and the meaningful productive work they offer those without other skills. By making them and them alone face this costly extra non-market constraint on hiring, they become disadvantaged and shrink, relative to other sectors and overseas competitors.
It would be like deciding "every low-income family requires a computer", but rather than buying it out of common public funds, making it a legal requirement for just the domestic computer industry to provide free computers, out of their own revenues. Would that properly value the exact thing you want to happen – more computer production – or impair it by making it less profitable than other uses of the same talent/capital? The same goes with employment opportunities for the low-skilled. The minimum wage has been thinning such domestic opportunities out, for decades, rather than expanding them. Intended to reduce income disparities, it's increasing them.
Minimum wage laws destroy jobs and reduce overall welfare; they should be repealed rather than extended to novel business arrangements.
This is in fact their purpose. Minimum wage laws destroy low-paying jobs by making them illegal, preventing the least competitive members of our society from having the hours and days of their lives "mined" by an employer for negligible compensation.
That having these laws "reduces welfare" is, I believe, a conclusion not supported by fact.
A living example can be found in urban Brazil. By failing to outlaw and enforce certain minima (building codes, wages), large Brazilian cities have created vast marginal neighborhoods that no one wants to live in.
Based just on the example of favelas alone, I would argue that having laws to guarantee minimum wages is one thing a government can do immediately to protect the weaker members of a society.
I think you have not addressed another important duty of governments: to provide a reasonably rigorous educational launchpad so that the less fortunate need not always remain so.
This is in fact their purpose. Minimum wage laws destroy low-paying jobs by making them illegal, preventing the least competitive members of our society from having the hours and days of their lives "mined" by an employer for negligible compensation.
That having these laws "reduces welfare" is, I believe, a conclusion not supported by fact.
A living example can be found in urban Brazil. By failing to outlaw and enforce certain minima (building codes, wages), large Brazilian cities have created vast marginal neighborhoods that no one wants to live in.
Based just on the example of favelas alone, I would argue that having laws to guarantee minimum wages is one thing a government can do immediately to protect the weaker members of a society.
I think you have not addressed another important duty of governments: to provide a reasonably rigorous educational launchpad so that the less fortunate need not always remain so.
I've never been to Brazil, so I won't comment. But I live in India, so I'll discuss the situation here. The GDP/capita here is $3k/year, adjusted for purchasing power.
Pass all the laws you want, there is simply not enough wealth (i.e., not enough material and skilled labor) for everyone to live in a house that meets building codes. No matter what you redistribute (note: India has very low inequality [1]) or demand from people, you can't squeeze water from a stone.
[1] Nominal inequality is low, but inequality of living conditions is high. This is the exact opposite of the US, where the rich have a PS3 and an XBox, and the poor are stuck with only a PS2.
Pass all the laws you want, there is simply not enough wealth (i.e., not enough material and skilled labor) for everyone to live in a house that meets building codes. No matter what you redistribute (note: India has very low inequality [1]) or demand from people, you can't squeeze water from a stone.
[1] Nominal inequality is low, but inequality of living conditions is high. This is the exact opposite of the US, where the rich have a PS3 and an XBox, and the poor are stuck with only a PS2.
Over 70% of indians live in rural areas. Many of these people live completely outside of the monetary economy. Counting these people in the GDP statistics skews the whole thing. Yet many of these people live just fine by farming, but do not need to use money, or use very little of it. To me it seems that when making GDP statistics, it would be wise to count in only people in urban areas, participating in the labor market. Of course this would look quite bad from the point of view of neoliberalist economists.
So having no job is better than a low-paying job, in your analysis?
Brazil has a minimum wage. If it's not enforceable maybe that's because it's based on wishful thinking, pandering to those with an unrealistic mental models, rather than what's sustainable.
These 'vast marginal neighborhoods that no one wants to live in', they are empty ghost towns because no one wants to be there? I don't think so. And the favelas would just disappear if the firm-handed authorities were just a bit more insistent everyone get paid more (or nothing at all!)?
Rich societies can afford nice neighborhoods and rigorous building codes. Societies get rich by accepting every opportunity for voluntary coordination and incremental improvement. Societies stay poor by enacting showoff policies that appear generous but destroy more productivity than they enable, satisfying the aesthetic hopes of comfortable do-gooders, but trapping the really poor.
Brazil has a minimum wage. If it's not enforceable maybe that's because it's based on wishful thinking, pandering to those with an unrealistic mental models, rather than what's sustainable.
These 'vast marginal neighborhoods that no one wants to live in', they are empty ghost towns because no one wants to be there? I don't think so. And the favelas would just disappear if the firm-handed authorities were just a bit more insistent everyone get paid more (or nothing at all!)?
Rich societies can afford nice neighborhoods and rigorous building codes. Societies get rich by accepting every opportunity for voluntary coordination and incremental improvement. Societies stay poor by enacting showoff policies that appear generous but destroy more productivity than they enable, satisfying the aesthetic hopes of comfortable do-gooders, but trapping the really poor.
... having no job is better than a low-paying job, in your analysis?
Perhaps yes.
A price is a signal. As with any restriction on free speech, outlawing certain prices (low wages) should show a clear and easily demonstrated social benefit.
In this case, private free enterprise is clearly harmed, but the benefit returned to society is an intangible, a void: society receives only the absence or reduction of sweatshop working conditions.
I think we are actually in violent agreement on most of these issues.
The major exception, I think, is that I am deeply skeptical of a society's ability to check the worst behaviors of private corporations. I believe that certain entire business models are better legislated against and rendered completely illegal, to prevent regulatory capture [0].
EDIT: This view seems to be controversial. May I suggest a little light reading? [1]
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle
Perhaps yes.
A price is a signal. As with any restriction on free speech, outlawing certain prices (low wages) should show a clear and easily demonstrated social benefit.
In this case, private free enterprise is clearly harmed, but the benefit returned to society is an intangible, a void: society receives only the absence or reduction of sweatshop working conditions.
I think we are actually in violent agreement on most of these issues.
The major exception, I think, is that I am deeply skeptical of a society's ability to check the worst behaviors of private corporations. I believe that certain entire business models are better legislated against and rendered completely illegal, to prevent regulatory capture [0].
EDIT: This view seems to be controversial. May I suggest a little light reading? [1]
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle
Minimum wage laws destroy low-paying jobs by making them illegal, preventing the least competitive members of our society from having the hours and days of their lives "mined" by an employer for negligible compensation.
Except this is simply not true. Germany, where workers enjoy generous terms and privileges even for Western Europe, has no minimum wage, and its labour unions vocally oppose introducing one. Countries such as the US and UK with minimum wages have higher unemployment, and things are more precarious even for those in employment.
Except this is simply not true. Germany, where workers enjoy generous terms and privileges even for Western Europe, has no minimum wage, and its labour unions vocally oppose introducing one. Countries such as the US and UK with minimum wages have higher unemployment, and things are more precarious even for those in employment.
Declaring the German labor market to be a success while counting only German unemployment is misleading, something like saying US fiscal and labor policy is a blowout success because of yet another year of record low unemployment in North Dakota.
To measure the effectiveness of the policies that lead to German job creation, we need to count every worker who is receiving a wage in the German national currency against the workers who wanted to, and legally could have received wages in that currency.
When we look at the whole picture, the situation is ugly and getting worse. Headline unemployment averaged across the European single currency area is now 10.4% and rising rapidly. [0]
Germany is a manufacturing powerhouse, and its exports are currently red hot. Any breakup of EMU would brutally reprice those goods. I would expect this to lead to significant German unemployment.
[0] "Eurozone unemployment hits new record" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16808672 - 31 January 2012
To measure the effectiveness of the policies that lead to German job creation, we need to count every worker who is receiving a wage in the German national currency against the workers who wanted to, and legally could have received wages in that currency.
When we look at the whole picture, the situation is ugly and getting worse. Headline unemployment averaged across the European single currency area is now 10.4% and rising rapidly. [0]
Germany is a manufacturing powerhouse, and its exports are currently red hot. Any breakup of EMU would brutally reprice those goods. I would expect this to lead to significant German unemployment.
[0] "Eurozone unemployment hits new record" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16808672 - 31 January 2012
who wanted to, and legally could have received wages in that currency
There's the rub: how many unemployed Greeks have the skills to work in a German factory?
There's the rub: how many unemployed Greeks have the skills to work in a German factory?
> Minimum wage laws destroy jobs and reduce overall welfare
Cite, please.
Cite, please.
You can look up the debate via the Wikipedia article and other sources. The case for reduced jobs in most situations is very strong, the arguments about overall welfare more intense.
Often analytical (rather than emotional) minimum wage proponents admit a small decrease in total employment but think the benefits to those who make the cutoff helps offset that. That might even be true in a growing economy with generally low unemployment and short unemployment terms. In one with ~20% youth unemployment, and workers discouraged by multi-year stints of unemployment, any job – even a low-paying job – is better than prolonged idleness. Employers are understandably loathe to take a chance on those who have gone years without a reliable work history, or never started a work history at all.
When he wasn't quite as partisan, even Krugman could make an eloquent case that bad jobs at low wages were better than no jobs at all at wishful-thinking wages. See for example:
In Praise of Cheap Labor: Bad jobs at bad wages are better than no jobs at all
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/19...
Even today, while Krugman is against any sort of lowering-nominal-wages or lowering-minimum-wages for macroeconomic adjustment, he'd like to achieve the same thing through massive fiscal and monetary stimulus, essentially lowering wages through inflation.
In the funhouse mirror world of politics, the 1-2 punch of higher minimum wages but also inflation is a perennial winning strategy. Give people a superficially popular, though actually harmful, boost in minimum wages: an easy focal point on which to campaign. But prevent its full damage with harder-to-assess, noticeable-only-after-the-election inflation. Or at least keep the celebrated raises below other growth/income indicators, so that it's mostly a symbolic measure. (Any raise large enough to make a 'big difference' for minimum-wage earners would also make a 'big difference' in boosting unemployment.) Via the only-slightly-harmful symbolism, everyone (who is a politician) wins!
Often analytical (rather than emotional) minimum wage proponents admit a small decrease in total employment but think the benefits to those who make the cutoff helps offset that. That might even be true in a growing economy with generally low unemployment and short unemployment terms. In one with ~20% youth unemployment, and workers discouraged by multi-year stints of unemployment, any job – even a low-paying job – is better than prolonged idleness. Employers are understandably loathe to take a chance on those who have gone years without a reliable work history, or never started a work history at all.
When he wasn't quite as partisan, even Krugman could make an eloquent case that bad jobs at low wages were better than no jobs at all at wishful-thinking wages. See for example:
In Praise of Cheap Labor: Bad jobs at bad wages are better than no jobs at all
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/19...
Even today, while Krugman is against any sort of lowering-nominal-wages or lowering-minimum-wages for macroeconomic adjustment, he'd like to achieve the same thing through massive fiscal and monetary stimulus, essentially lowering wages through inflation.
In the funhouse mirror world of politics, the 1-2 punch of higher minimum wages but also inflation is a perennial winning strategy. Give people a superficially popular, though actually harmful, boost in minimum wages: an easy focal point on which to campaign. But prevent its full damage with harder-to-assess, noticeable-only-after-the-election inflation. Or at least keep the celebrated raises below other growth/income indicators, so that it's mostly a symbolic measure. (Any raise large enough to make a 'big difference' for minimum-wage earners would also make a 'big difference' in boosting unemployment.) Via the only-slightly-harmful symbolism, everyone (who is a politician) wins!
Let's say we cut minimum wage in half. How many jobs are going to be created? If it's not profitable for the business to hire a worker at $7 an hour, is it going to be at $3/hour? That's a business with crazy low margins.
Pretty much right now minimum wage workers usually do service jobs (fast food, waiting, etc), household chores (cleaning, landscaping), farming, or no-skill manufacturing.
No-skill manufacturing is largely dead in this country. Changing the minimum wage won't change the fact that you still have to follow environmental and safety regulation. That is expensive in its own right. You also can pay $3/hour in a different country and get good people. You can pay $10-15/hour and get great people. If you pay $3/hour in the US, you are going to get the people who can't even get a minimum wage job. I doubt a lot of companies want to hire those people for any price.
For service jobs, you usually have a fairly fixed number of people. If McDonalds has 3 registers, they already have 3 cashiers at lunchtime. Lowering minimum wage just hurts all those people because the pay will be less. It won't create many more jobs.
Farming could see a big increase in people, or at least a big increase in paying people on the books. A lot of migrant farmers are paid off the books below minimum wage as is.
So where is this giant pent up demand for hiring $3/hour workers? All I see is a marginal increase in jobs, and a massive decrease in wages for everyone else near the bottom.
Pretty much right now minimum wage workers usually do service jobs (fast food, waiting, etc), household chores (cleaning, landscaping), farming, or no-skill manufacturing.
No-skill manufacturing is largely dead in this country. Changing the minimum wage won't change the fact that you still have to follow environmental and safety regulation. That is expensive in its own right. You also can pay $3/hour in a different country and get good people. You can pay $10-15/hour and get great people. If you pay $3/hour in the US, you are going to get the people who can't even get a minimum wage job. I doubt a lot of companies want to hire those people for any price.
For service jobs, you usually have a fairly fixed number of people. If McDonalds has 3 registers, they already have 3 cashiers at lunchtime. Lowering minimum wage just hurts all those people because the pay will be less. It won't create many more jobs.
Farming could see a big increase in people, or at least a big increase in paying people on the books. A lot of migrant farmers are paid off the books below minimum wage as is.
So where is this giant pent up demand for hiring $3/hour workers? All I see is a marginal increase in jobs, and a massive decrease in wages for everyone else near the bottom.
I am all for setting up a minimum wage below the fair price of labor. This way you protect people who are vulnerable, e.g. people with no savings or can't speak the language, while at the same time ensure more people who wants a job can get one.
There are some people who can only be hired with a wage below the minimum:- high school dropouts, immigrants, physically disabled, blind, mentally ill, elderly, long term unemployed. By setting up a minimum wage too high you are ensuring all these people will not get jobs even if they want or need one. To the employers eyes: if you had to pay $7/hr anyway to hire someone, you might as well hire someone who is physically strong, understands english and has graduated high school.
The minimum wage makes people on the lowest tier unemployable. Arguably it does raise wages for workers on the people near the bottom but not quite there. As you can see there is certainly a trade-off to be made.
There are some people who can only be hired with a wage below the minimum:- high school dropouts, immigrants, physically disabled, blind, mentally ill, elderly, long term unemployed. By setting up a minimum wage too high you are ensuring all these people will not get jobs even if they want or need one. To the employers eyes: if you had to pay $7/hr anyway to hire someone, you might as well hire someone who is physically strong, understands english and has graduated high school.
The minimum wage makes people on the lowest tier unemployable. Arguably it does raise wages for workers on the people near the bottom but not quite there. As you can see there is certainly a trade-off to be made.
If you pay $3/hour in the US, you are going to get the people who can't even get a minimum wage job. I doubt a lot of companies want to hire those people for any price.
All you are saying here is that the min wage is harmless because it's set below market rates. I.e., it's like setting a $0.25/gallon price floor for petrol, or passing any sort of "keep doing what you are already doing" law.
But if that is the case, then why would wages decrease if we eliminated the min wage?
As for the pent-up demand for $3/hour workers, you can see it every time a company outsources or offshores. My company (located in India) wouldn't exist if we had to pay $7.25/hour, for example. (Of course, market rates for the people we need would probably be higher than $7.25 in the US, so the min wage is a moot point - lowering it would not affect our costs or our hypothetical US employee's wages.)
All you are saying here is that the min wage is harmless because it's set below market rates. I.e., it's like setting a $0.25/gallon price floor for petrol, or passing any sort of "keep doing what you are already doing" law.
But if that is the case, then why would wages decrease if we eliminated the min wage?
As for the pent-up demand for $3/hour workers, you can see it every time a company outsources or offshores. My company (located in India) wouldn't exist if we had to pay $7.25/hour, for example. (Of course, market rates for the people we need would probably be higher than $7.25 in the US, so the min wage is a moot point - lowering it would not affect our costs or our hypothetical US employee's wages.)
You presuppose several things: 1) that "analytical" thinking (whatever that even means) is superior to "emotional" thinking, and 2) that benefits can be boiled down to economic nonsense (e.g. "money", "happiness").
without minimum wage wouldn't simple Supply and Demand take over and cause wages to plummet for unskilled workers? Compare it to software engineering, lots of demand and not enough qualified people = well compensated software engineers
without the minimum you are correct that theoretically more jobs would exist, but at a pay rate so low that it would create an incentive not to work at all. the government assistance required for an employeed unskilled worker and an unemployed one would be about the same, whats the motivation to work?
without the minimum you are correct that theoretically more jobs would exist, but at a pay rate so low that it would create an incentive not to work at all. the government assistance required for an employeed unskilled worker and an unemployed one would be about the same, whats the motivation to work?
This problem, if it arose, can rather quickly self-correct. If people choose not to work at all at the offered rate, you offer more, until you have the workers you need. (Similarly, if you need better workers, you offer more, as long as it is still profitable to do so.)
What if people band together into a sort of Union, and agree (in a binding way, with punishment for defectors) as a group (through some sort of majority vote, since consensus is impossible in a large group) to demand a certain wage?
You'd have... a republic with a minimum wage law.
You'd have... a republic with a minimum wage law.
Indeed, that's what we have. That doesn't refute the idea that the minimum wage law is destructive to general welfare (and especially the welfare of those specifically unemployed because of it). It just means it's a popular destructive law, like many other price controls.
I'm glad someone else is calling this for what it is: a way to get around minimum wage.
Another solution would be to use worker reputation (something explored by Panos Ipeirotis @ http://www.behind-the-enemy-lines.com/ )
Because MT workers are unreliable, you often need to have several doing the same task. Better workers require fewer checks, and are therefore much more cost effective. Right now MT is a market for lemons.
So the challenge then would be to let poor people build up a reputation to fix that market...
Another solution would be to use worker reputation (something explored by Panos Ipeirotis @ http://www.behind-the-enemy-lines.com/ )
Because MT workers are unreliable, you often need to have several doing the same task. Better workers require fewer checks, and are therefore much more cost effective. Right now MT is a market for lemons.
So the challenge then would be to let poor people build up a reputation to fix that market...
At that point just hire someone skilled to write around it. The unskilled labour isn't competitive at 7.25/hr. I'd rather send it to a semi-skilled in Bangalore at 5-6/hr.
It would be no different than if a thousand companies banded together to source labor below minimum wage by paying per task, and sharing that labor around rather than employing each laborer in a "job" (eg in a metro area with high population density). Those companies would be paying for net full time labor, while evading the minimum wage responsibility.
This is not the sort of disruption we want in the marketplace. Let's say someone rolls this out, with moderate success. What's to say a company like Wal-Mart wouldn't crowdsource stocking shelves? We already see some people taking advantage of low-income workers (giving less than 36 hours to avoid health insurance coverage, etc). This would be another opportunity to lower costs all around without much of an upside for those doing the work.
This is not the sort of disruption we want in the marketplace. Let's say someone rolls this out, with moderate success. What's to say a company like Wal-Mart wouldn't crowdsource stocking shelves? We already see some people taking advantage of low-income workers (giving less than 36 hours to avoid health insurance coverage, etc). This would be another opportunity to lower costs all around without much of an upside for those doing the work.
That sounds like a pretty good idea, walmart crowdsourcing shelf stacking. Startups might be able to offfer that as service smaller stores right now.
Also, the possibility for automation is then great as well. Companies could offer assistive devices and software to the freelance shelf stackers for increasing their productivity, all they way to full blown robots.
Can also apply this to other tasks such as crowdsourced burger flippers and crowdsourced cleaners.
There's a lot of opportunity in automation of service businesses such as retailer and restaurants, but it seems like the industry does not take much interest in applying robotics to the task. This crowdsourcing system would be a way for nimbler companies to introduce more technology into the system without going through the management.
Also, the possibility for automation is then great as well. Companies could offer assistive devices and software to the freelance shelf stackers for increasing their productivity, all they way to full blown robots.
Can also apply this to other tasks such as crowdsourced burger flippers and crowdsourced cleaners.
There's a lot of opportunity in automation of service businesses such as retailer and restaurants, but it seems like the industry does not take much interest in applying robotics to the task. This crowdsourcing system would be a way for nimbler companies to introduce more technology into the system without going through the management.
Robotics is not as cheap as you think. I've brought systems in to factories to do seemingly simple things that cost easily $250k without batting an eye. You can pay someone more than minimum wage for many years for that kind of money.
What would robots capable of stocking shelves cost? $500k? It's just not worth it. McDonalds has how many thousands of stores - and they don't bother automating that much. Amazon.com still uses people to pick their orders (for the most part). The companies aren't stupid, someone has run the numbers and figured out that robots are too expensive.
It's not even Moore's law thing. Computer are plenty powerful. You can make a robot do these things. But by the time you buy good quality motors, batteries, and sensors, it gets expensive no matter how cheap the computer is.
What would robots capable of stocking shelves cost? $500k? It's just not worth it. McDonalds has how many thousands of stores - and they don't bother automating that much. Amazon.com still uses people to pick their orders (for the most part). The companies aren't stupid, someone has run the numbers and figured out that robots are too expensive.
It's not even Moore's law thing. Computer are plenty powerful. You can make a robot do these things. But by the time you buy good quality motors, batteries, and sensors, it gets expensive no matter how cheap the computer is.
Industrial robots are heavy and thus expensive because they lack visual servoing. Heartland robotics plans to bring out a lightweight low cost robot this year. Also, the predator algorithm invented last year can do real time visual servoing that wasn't possible before. Add in a person to cover in the gaps and you might be golden.
If the above is true, why hasn't it been done you might ask.
I might be wrong, but you could have the said the same thing about why a search engine that didn't suck wasn't around in 1997 - why didn't microsoft, or yahoo, or ibm have that, or even buy it from sergey and larry?
If the above is true, why hasn't it been done you might ask.
I might be wrong, but you could have the said the same thing about why a search engine that didn't suck wasn't around in 1997 - why didn't microsoft, or yahoo, or ibm have that, or even buy it from sergey and larry?
First of all, the payment is about seven dollar according to the article that is slightly above minimum wage. It may be below some states wage but it is clearly close.
What mechanical turk does allow companies (and individuals) to do however is to hire people for a very short term (a few seconds) for, literally, pennies.
And assuming that enough work was available we should expect the rate to increase since there will be less spam bots.
And at any rate it is better than the alternative of make work.
What mechanical turk does allow companies (and individuals) to do however is to hire people for a very short term (a few seconds) for, literally, pennies.
And assuming that enough work was available we should expect the rate to increase since there will be less spam bots.
And at any rate it is better than the alternative of make work.
the payment is about seven dollar according to the article
This is unrealistic in practice. The Simple Dollar article cited describes making >$7 in an hour, but $6.55 of that comes from writing an article on email autoresponder marketing and writing a review of an unspecified service. Those aren't the kind of tasks that anybody can accomplish in a timely and competent manner, nor is the supply of those tasks reliable.
This is unrealistic in practice. The Simple Dollar article cited describes making >$7 in an hour, but $6.55 of that comes from writing an article on email autoresponder marketing and writing a review of an unspecified service. Those aren't the kind of tasks that anybody can accomplish in a timely and competent manner, nor is the supply of those tasks reliable.
Federal minimum wage is $7.25 / hour. So it's slightly below minimum wage.
I was under the impression that "by the piece work" was currently not subject to the minimum wage. For example, if you pay someone $1 per apple that they pick, you aren't required to pay them a minimum amount per hour. Is there anyone familiar with labor law who can provide some perspective?
That's a good question. The law is pretty complex and I don't pretend to understand it all, but the basic answer as I understand it is that piece work rates have to be calculated in such a way that you'll get the "prevailing wage rate" -- http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/14c/18e.htm
There are also exceptions for people with disabilities, special minimum wages (you can actually pay the disabled less than minimum... sometimes), etc.
So, I think the basic answer is that you still have to respect minimum wage, but how you do that is pretty complex.
There are also exceptions for people with disabilities, special minimum wages (you can actually pay the disabled less than minimum... sometimes), etc.
So, I think the basic answer is that you still have to respect minimum wage, but how you do that is pretty complex.
Want to enforce minimum wages laws? No problems - it will just change work flow to workers from other countries where local ones will be left without one extra option.
There is a really good talk by Jonathan Zittrain on the dangers of crowd sourcing. I think it speaks to your point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw3h-rae3uo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw3h-rae3uo
People already work for less than minimum wage... if they can find a job! This would just bring more employment opportunities to those who need it.
So what you also need is more businesses to use mechanical turk or similar services. There's a huge opportunity in that for startups. The biggest is probably bridging the physical and digital worlds. Controlling robots through mechanical turk. Every factory robot, cnc machine, or 3d printer needs someone to keep an eye on it in case anything goes wrong so that the machine can get shut off.
Also, cashiers and receptionists. Is it really necessary for person to be there in person.
And marketing. Testing which ads/videos work best.
Also, cashiers and receptionists. Is it really necessary for person to be there in person.
And marketing. Testing which ads/videos work best.
> Controlling robots through mechanical turk.
No one would let a random person on the street control their half a million dollar machine.
> And marketing. Testing which ads/videos work best.
Urban poor are definitely not the group advertisers are targeting.
No one would let a random person on the street control their half a million dollar machine.
> And marketing. Testing which ads/videos work best.
Urban poor are definitely not the group advertisers are targeting.
It's not as simple as that. It's not one poor guy looking a video feed or judging ads. It would be sophisticated system that pools together many workers in ways to get quality.
So, for example, if the factory robot knocks something over, and there are 10 different people watching a few frames of video, it's pretty likely they'd spot the mistake.
Same goes for ad critiques. You wouldn't ask "is this a good ad". You'd split it up. "Is this actor better wearing a blue shirt than a red shirt" - ask 10 people.
So, for example, if the factory robot knocks something over, and there are 10 different people watching a few frames of video, it's pretty likely they'd spot the mistake.
Same goes for ad critiques. You wouldn't ask "is this a good ad". You'd split it up. "Is this actor better wearing a blue shirt than a red shirt" - ask 10 people.
> Same goes for ad critiques. You wouldn't ask "is this a good ad". You'd split it up. "Is this actor better wearing a blue shirt than a red shirt" - ask 10 people.
But you're still asking the "wrong" people. And you're asking, instead of observing the actual behaviour.
But you're still asking the "wrong" people. And you're asking, instead of observing the actual behaviour.
You can have statistics figure that out for you. Are turkers good at judging ads based on past data. If not, maybe it's because you weren't presenting the right metrics for the turkers to judge and so you keep reiterating until you do. This is actually a good business for a startup, you get runaway success such as google has (the data keeps improving your lead over rivals).
This resonates a lot with Henry Ford's innovations of conveyor belt assembly lines. Ford found out how to humans into an early form of robot, and once technology caught up these jobs inevitably were replaced with actual robots. Even if this Turk Station idea works, how long will it be until AI replaces any need for Mechanical Turk? About 10 years I'm guessing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_line#Ford_Motor_Compan...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_line#Ford_Motor_Compan...
Henry Ford also thought it was important that his workers be able to purchase the product that they are making in order to drive the economy. Turking isn't even going to feed you.
The point of Mechanical Turk is to decouple the workers from the task being done. As computing advances there should always be some kind of task that requires human effort.
This is a great idea. It would really work if it supplements the welfare checks; it would get people into the mindset of working. Let me explain.
Right now, if you're a bum, you make a decent amount of money panhandling + scamming the government ("disability", etc.); let's call this "freeloading". The problem is: the amount of money you can make freeloading is close to minimum wage (if you include everything). So there isn't much incentive to take up work; freeloading may not pay as much, but you get total freedom, no schedules, no boss, etc. After some time, you just become so used to that lifestyle that it's impossible to come back into the working mainstream.
A system like this can be a great way for people to, on their own schedule, supplement their freeloading income. Over time, they'd get used to the concept of effort and reward, and maybe consider taking up real work?
On another note: I think minimum wage should be much higher; say, $20/hour. This may not sound like a good idea, but think about it: it should be high enough that a freeloader has serious economic incentive to get off his ass and look for work! Another way to look at it is: I would much rather pay more for something, and have that extra money directly go to a worker's pocket; than route the money circuitously through government taxes, bureaucracy, non-profits, etc. to that person on welfare.
Edit: the above are just ideas. If you disagree with them, say something instead of hitting the down arrow.
Right now, if you're a bum, you make a decent amount of money panhandling + scamming the government ("disability", etc.); let's call this "freeloading". The problem is: the amount of money you can make freeloading is close to minimum wage (if you include everything). So there isn't much incentive to take up work; freeloading may not pay as much, but you get total freedom, no schedules, no boss, etc. After some time, you just become so used to that lifestyle that it's impossible to come back into the working mainstream.
A system like this can be a great way for people to, on their own schedule, supplement their freeloading income. Over time, they'd get used to the concept of effort and reward, and maybe consider taking up real work?
On another note: I think minimum wage should be much higher; say, $20/hour. This may not sound like a good idea, but think about it: it should be high enough that a freeloader has serious economic incentive to get off his ass and look for work! Another way to look at it is: I would much rather pay more for something, and have that extra money directly go to a worker's pocket; than route the money circuitously through government taxes, bureaucracy, non-profits, etc. to that person on welfare.
Edit: the above are just ideas. If you disagree with them, say something instead of hitting the down arrow.
scamming the government ("disability", etc.)
You know that there are loads of actual poor disabled people? Not everyone on social welfare is a leech on society. Have some compassion.
You know that there are loads of actual poor disabled people? Not everyone on social welfare is a leech on society. Have some compassion.
[deleted]
GP didn't assert there weren't poor disabled people; merely that if you are a [sc. non-disabled] poor person it is possible to scam the government into paying you disability benefits.
You do realize that $20/hr over the course of a year is roughly $40,000. And $40,000 is more than what something like 40% of the people in the US make in a given year. That would be an unworkable change in the labor market. Most college graduates don't start out making that much right out of college, much less people without a college degree.
> On another note: I think minimum wage should be much higher; say, $20/hour. This may not sound like a good idea, but think about it: it should be high enough that a freeloader has serious economic incentive to get off his ass and look for work! Another way to look at it is: I would much rather pay more for something, and have that extra money directly go to a worker's pocket; than route the money circuitously through government taxes, bureaucracy, non-profits, etc. to that person on welfare.
How about work as the incentive?
We have crappy parks and yet we give money to folks who don't work. That shouldn't be.
And don't give me "they can't afford day care". For every group of four parents on aid, one does day care for the other three while they work.
Crappy jobs are the best incentive.
How about work as the incentive?
We have crappy parks and yet we give money to folks who don't work. That shouldn't be.
And don't give me "they can't afford day care". For every group of four parents on aid, one does day care for the other three while they work.
Crappy jobs are the best incentive.
> How about work as the incentive?
Here's how I look at it. You can either apply force (by making the urban poor work at some crappy job) ; or you can apply attraction, and have them move themselves (by offering a significant economic incentive to work). Ye old carrot and stick solution. :)
I believe the former (stick) has been tried many times, and it doesn't work quite as well. People just don't like others telling them what to do.
But by giving a significant incentive (a carrot), you make the person themselves affect change; and it is more sustainable.
Anyways: these are just ideas that I'm hoping can spur some discussion. Looking at the number of urban poor, the current system isn't working.
Here's how I look at it. You can either apply force (by making the urban poor work at some crappy job) ; or you can apply attraction, and have them move themselves (by offering a significant economic incentive to work). Ye old carrot and stick solution. :)
I believe the former (stick) has been tried many times, and it doesn't work quite as well. People just don't like others telling them what to do.
But by giving a significant incentive (a carrot), you make the person themselves affect change; and it is more sustainable.
Anyways: these are just ideas that I'm hoping can spur some discussion. Looking at the number of urban poor, the current system isn't working.
> You can either apply force (by making the urban poor work at some crappy job)
I'm not suggesting applying force. I'm saying that they only get money for doing crappy jobs. If they don't want to do the crappy jobs, fine, but no money.
> Looking at the number of urban poor, the current system isn't working.
The current system rewards bad behavior.
I'm not suggesting applying force. I'm saying that they only get money for doing crappy jobs. If they don't want to do the crappy jobs, fine, but no money.
> Looking at the number of urban poor, the current system isn't working.
The current system rewards bad behavior.
$20 / hour is a nice thought, but unfortunately what that would do is create massive unemployment and much larger welfare abuse. There's a fine line on just how high you can set a minimum wage (in relation to the economy in question) before you give too much incentive to companies to automate that labor, shrink their business slightly, or offload the costs to the consumer with price increases (net negative result).
Google what happened in New Jersey when they raised minimum wage above the federal level years ago (low paid jobs got wiped out, companies fired workers and attempted to become more efficient, particularly it hammered fast food workers).
Or this:
"Dr. Peter Brandon of the Institute for Research on Poverty studied how raising the minimum wage affect the transition from welfare to work. He found that raising it keeps welfare mothers on welfare longer. Mothers on welfare in states that raised their minimum wage remained on welfare 44 percent longer than mothers on welfare in states where it was not raised"
http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/against/again...
Google what happened in New Jersey when they raised minimum wage above the federal level years ago (low paid jobs got wiped out, companies fired workers and attempted to become more efficient, particularly it hammered fast food workers).
Or this:
"Dr. Peter Brandon of the Institute for Research on Poverty studied how raising the minimum wage affect the transition from welfare to work. He found that raising it keeps welfare mothers on welfare longer. Mothers on welfare in states that raised their minimum wage remained on welfare 44 percent longer than mothers on welfare in states where it was not raised"
http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/against/again...
I understand what you're saying; but the problem here is that 1 state raised the minimum wage. Naturally, jobs will flow to the neighboring states. But what if the Federal minimum wage was raised?
You do understand the point I'm trying to make: that there should be _some_ _significant_ economic incentive for people to get off welfare and on to work! Right now the incentive is minimal at best.
So how do you create the gradient that moves people off of welfare and on to jobs? You can either take away welfare benefits; or you can give much more rewards for working.
You do understand the point I'm trying to make: that there should be _some_ _significant_ economic incentive for people to get off welfare and on to work! Right now the incentive is minimal at best.
So how do you create the gradient that moves people off of welfare and on to jobs? You can either take away welfare benefits; or you can give much more rewards for working.
You can either take away welfare benefits; or you can give much more rewards for working.
A third, mostly unexplored option, is to reduce the status/luxuries of people accepting welfare.
I.e., instead of receiving housing vouchers and money to buy food/clothing, they could receive dormitory rooms (no TV or XBox), healthy dormitory meals and government issued grey jumpsuits.
Under such a system, there would be a significant incentive to get a job and no one would go hungry.
A third, mostly unexplored option, is to reduce the status/luxuries of people accepting welfare.
I.e., instead of receiving housing vouchers and money to buy food/clothing, they could receive dormitory rooms (no TV or XBox), healthy dormitory meals and government issued grey jumpsuits.
Under such a system, there would be a significant incentive to get a job and no one would go hungry.
This sounds eerily like the current Republican platform. Abuse of the welfare system has been explored in the past and found to be a tiny minority of all people receiving it. Let's not punish those people who use the system correctly on account of those that don't, hm?
Abuse of the welfare system has been explored in the past and found to be a tiny minority of all people receiving it.
Depends on what you mean by "abuse". Most poor people don't work and don't even look for work, preferring to collect free money. That's not "abuse" in the sense that welfare rules allow people to do this, but it is behavior we should try to prevent.
Ultimately I favor eliminating welfare and replacing it with a guaranteed unskilled job having below market pay. That's the perfect way to distinguish between the deserving and undeserving poor - no work, no welfare.
I'm not sure how this relates to the republican platform - as far as I know, the two front runners (Romney and Santorum) are basically democrats on economic issues. But I haven't followed closely, so feel free to correct me.
Depends on what you mean by "abuse". Most poor people don't work and don't even look for work, preferring to collect free money. That's not "abuse" in the sense that welfare rules allow people to do this, but it is behavior we should try to prevent.
Ultimately I favor eliminating welfare and replacing it with a guaranteed unskilled job having below market pay. That's the perfect way to distinguish between the deserving and undeserving poor - no work, no welfare.
I'm not sure how this relates to the republican platform - as far as I know, the two front runners (Romney and Santorum) are basically democrats on economic issues. But I haven't followed closely, so feel free to correct me.
>Most poor people don't work and don't even look for work,
Citation badly needed.
Citation badly needed.
I'm sure I sound like a broken record for posting this yet again, but here you go:
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2009.pdf
I exclude children from the numbers here:
http://crazybear.posterous.com/why-the-poor-dont-work
Net result, 36% of poor adults work or look for work at least 26 weeks/year, and 25% of poor adults work full time or look for full time work.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2009.pdf
I exclude children from the numbers here:
http://crazybear.posterous.com/why-the-poor-dont-work
Net result, 36% of poor adults work or look for work at least 26 weeks/year, and 25% of poor adults work full time or look for full time work.
If you had stuck with that raw data I wouldn't have taken any issue with what you said. It's that "preferred" that stuck in my craw.
All this data says is exactly what the last line of your last post does. There is no "preference" stated here. The reasons why are not explored (and would probably be out of the scope of this paper anyways).
Keep in mind, our unemployment rate right now is absurdly high right now. I somehow doubt that's because people "prefer" to remain poor.
All this data says is exactly what the last line of your last post does. There is no "preference" stated here. The reasons why are not explored (and would probably be out of the scope of this paper anyways).
Keep in mind, our unemployment rate right now is absurdly high right now. I somehow doubt that's because people "prefer" to remain poor.
There is no "preference" stated here.
Without compelling evidence otherwise, I tend to subscribe to the theory of revealed preferences - our actions reveal what we really want.
But you are logically correct, there are some possibilities, e.g., the poor would prefer to have a job but irrationally don't look for one.
I somehow doubt that's because people "prefer" to remain poor.
You are looking at the wrong choice set. The choice set is not [ poor, middle class]. The choice set is [ (poor, leisure), (middle class, hard work) ]. The theory I'm pushing is that for some people, utility(leisure)-utility(hard work) > utility(middle class) - utility(poor). See my blog post for more details.
Also, this is not caused by the current recession. The numbers have been similar since 1996 (the year of the earliest report I can find with a quick google search).
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp96.htm
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2002.pdf
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2006.pdf
(Tweak URLs to get data for intermediate years.)
Without compelling evidence otherwise, I tend to subscribe to the theory of revealed preferences - our actions reveal what we really want.
But you are logically correct, there are some possibilities, e.g., the poor would prefer to have a job but irrationally don't look for one.
I somehow doubt that's because people "prefer" to remain poor.
You are looking at the wrong choice set. The choice set is not [ poor, middle class]. The choice set is [ (poor, leisure), (middle class, hard work) ]. The theory I'm pushing is that for some people, utility(leisure)-utility(hard work) > utility(middle class) - utility(poor). See my blog post for more details.
Also, this is not caused by the current recession. The numbers have been similar since 1996 (the year of the earliest report I can find with a quick google search).
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp96.htm
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2002.pdf
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2006.pdf
(Tweak URLs to get data for intermediate years.)
>Without compelling evidence otherwise, I tend to subscribe to the theory of revealed preferences - our actions reveal what we really want.
It doesn't make sense to assume that people who are not working are doing so just out of a desire to avoid work.
>But you are logically correct, there are some possibilities, e.g., the poor would prefer to have a job but irrationally don't look for one.
Or there are no jobs within distance that pay the bills (i.e. what's the point of flipping burgers for minimum wage - it won't pay the rent and feed the kids). In which case it stops being an argument of utility and one of common sense - it makes none to work at a job which would be a pointless treadmill in which you stand a zero chance of ever getting back on your feet.
What bothers me is that you're assuming preference from raw data. This is a problem when the data does not support (or even attempt to) support any such conclusion - does it take into account local conditions?
If not, then any such analysis (including yours) is baseless.
It doesn't make sense to assume that people who are not working are doing so just out of a desire to avoid work.
>But you are logically correct, there are some possibilities, e.g., the poor would prefer to have a job but irrationally don't look for one.
Or there are no jobs within distance that pay the bills (i.e. what's the point of flipping burgers for minimum wage - it won't pay the rent and feed the kids). In which case it stops being an argument of utility and one of common sense - it makes none to work at a job which would be a pointless treadmill in which you stand a zero chance of ever getting back on your feet.
What bothers me is that you're assuming preference from raw data. This is a problem when the data does not support (or even attempt to) support any such conclusion - does it take into account local conditions?
If not, then any such analysis (including yours) is baseless.
I disagree; this form of welfare is increasingly common here in the states. We call it prison.
Anyone who is down on their luck can walk into prison, receive benefits, and move out as soon as they find something better?
... instead of receiving housing vouchers and money to buy food/clothing, they could receive dormitory rooms (no TV or XBox), healthy dormitory meals and government issued grey jumpsuits.
I am surprised, and a little disappointed, that there has been no mention yet in these comments of Marshall Brain's story "Robotic Nation". It is a well-reasoned exploration of exactly this issue.
The January 20, 2003 issue of Time magazine notes the trend:
"Cities have lost patience, concentrating on getting the homeless out of sight. In New York City, where shelter space can't be created fast enough, Mayor Mike Bloomberg has proposed using old cruise ships for housing."
This is not science fiction -- this is today's news. What we are talking about here are massive, government-controlled welfare dormitories keeping everyone who is unemployed "out of sight". ...
I am surprised, and a little disappointed, that there has been no mention yet in these comments of Marshall Brain's story "Robotic Nation". It is a well-reasoned exploration of exactly this issue.
---------------------------------------------
The January 20, 2003 issue of Time magazine notes the trend:
"Cities have lost patience, concentrating on getting the homeless out of sight. In New York City, where shelter space can't be created fast enough, Mayor Mike Bloomberg has proposed using old cruise ships for housing."
This is not science fiction -- this is today's news. What we are talking about here are massive, government-controlled welfare dormitories keeping everyone who is unemployed "out of sight". ...
---------------------------------------------
One thing I still don't get from marshall brain (from his otherwise visionary writing), is: If there is going to be 50% unemployment, who is going to be spending their money on flights. Will people eat as much fast food? If no one is working, who needs robotic tax accountants?
He says there would be many sectors where human jobs are replaced. I'd say many sectors gone, completely. Who needs to go to a fast food restaurant when your robot can make it for you for... the price of bread? Who needs tax accountants when your computer can do it?
He says there would be many sectors where human jobs are replaced. I'd say many sectors gone, completely. Who needs to go to a fast food restaurant when your robot can make it for you for... the price of bread? Who needs tax accountants when your computer can do it?
I am cautiously optimistic that something will appear to engage the bodies and minds of those thrown out of work by any future waves of automation.
The solution will probably be something that I think is silly today.
An example. I was a fairly early adopter of the Internet. By the time I got around to reading Ender's Game, the leading search engine was Archie, and the web had not been invented. But I recognized Usenet (or something like it) in Card's description of discussion boards.
I thought the idea that anyone might achieve anything practical in the real world based on the strength of electronically published rhetoric was not just silly, but slap-my-knee hilarious.
Just look, I thought, at the laughable impotence of all these "letters to the editor" in newspapers. Surely electronic journalism will be cheaper, easier and much more accessible, therefore much more popular, and therefore of exponentially less value.
I kept chuckling for years, even as blogging gained popularity and influence.
Even though I was quite interested in an outcome like Card predicted, and had even been involved in getting the machinery in place to support a future like he imagined, I still reached a conclusion that was completely unsound.
We will probably be fine.
The solution will probably be something that I think is silly today.
An example. I was a fairly early adopter of the Internet. By the time I got around to reading Ender's Game, the leading search engine was Archie, and the web had not been invented. But I recognized Usenet (or something like it) in Card's description of discussion boards.
I thought the idea that anyone might achieve anything practical in the real world based on the strength of electronically published rhetoric was not just silly, but slap-my-knee hilarious.
Just look, I thought, at the laughable impotence of all these "letters to the editor" in newspapers. Surely electronic journalism will be cheaper, easier and much more accessible, therefore much more popular, and therefore of exponentially less value.
I kept chuckling for years, even as blogging gained popularity and influence.
Even though I was quite interested in an outcome like Card predicted, and had even been involved in getting the machinery in place to support a future like he imagined, I still reached a conclusion that was completely unsound.
We will probably be fine.
I think building dorms to house the population would be a significant obstacle to this approach.
The same threshold applies whether at the federal or state level in terms of the consequences. Push it too far at the federal level and you'll wipe out a row of cheap labor jobs, that will either be automated or off-shored; and those that can't be either will result in consumer price increases (which just burdens primarily the poor and middle class).
If you want to incentivize with $20 / hour minimum wage, you'd have to mandate hiring, or change the laws governing firing employees. Businesses would rebel against it immediately otherwise.
Bill Clinton & the Republicans worked together in the mid 1990s to successfully overhaul the existing welfare system by altering the terms of how you could get welfare and for how long and so on. Prior to that, the system was largely resulting in a stagnant perpetual welfare cycle, where people went in and never came out. It seemed to work great right up until the big economic implosion of the last few years.
If you want to incentivize with $20 / hour minimum wage, you'd have to mandate hiring, or change the laws governing firing employees. Businesses would rebel against it immediately otherwise.
Bill Clinton & the Republicans worked together in the mid 1990s to successfully overhaul the existing welfare system by altering the terms of how you could get welfare and for how long and so on. Prior to that, the system was largely resulting in a stagnant perpetual welfare cycle, where people went in and never came out. It seemed to work great right up until the big economic implosion of the last few years.
I disagree that you would have to mandate hiring. The local Walgreens needs 5 people to man the store. Do you think they'll just close up shop? Of course not. They'll have to pay more to their employees, and we (the customers) will have to pay an additional, say, 5%.
As for the welfare reform: people route around obstacles. I think people have been able to game the current system too. "Disability" is one such option; claim a physical disability, and get $1000/month in disability payments (or that's what I've heard). Earned Income Credit is another such option.
My basic point is: just like in any learning algorithm, we need a gradient that will drive people in the right direction. The larger the gradient, the faster the movement. :)
As for the welfare reform: people route around obstacles. I think people have been able to game the current system too. "Disability" is one such option; claim a physical disability, and get $1000/month in disability payments (or that's what I've heard). Earned Income Credit is another such option.
My basic point is: just like in any learning algorithm, we need a gradient that will drive people in the right direction. The larger the gradient, the faster the movement. :)
Do you think they'll just close up shop? Of course not.
Some stores on the margin will be driven bankrupt by the increased costs, and these stores will close up shop.
Some stores on the margin will be driven bankrupt by the increased costs, and these stores will close up shop.
But every store in that business would see their labor costs rise proportionately, so the net effect would be zero. If Walgreens' costs go up by 5%, so will Rite Aid's, CVS's, etc. Stores will just pass on the costs to the consumers. Plus, the labor cost of stores like Walgreens are very small compared to the merchandise costs. And the high-paying jobs (Pharmacists, etc.) would not be affected anyways, since you're just raising the minimum wage.
Other than Walmart, you'd be hard-pressed to find a business where the minimum-wage employees are a significant cost item in the budget.
Other than Walmart, you'd be hard-pressed to find a business where the minimum-wage employees are a significant cost item in the budget.
> Stores will just pass on the costs to the consumers.
Which just eats up the increase in minimum wage.
Which just eats up the increase in minimum wage.
To some extent, yes - but to what extent? Surely not entirely.
Does anybody have numbers on this sort of thing? Because if we just assume the cost is passed on to {all consumers}, much of it would be eaten up by non-minimum wage-earners, the majority of the workforce (and thus the majority of consumers).
And much of those costs may also be passed on to products that aren't generally bought by minimum-wage earners, too.
Does anybody have numbers on this sort of thing? Because if we just assume the cost is passed on to {all consumers}, much of it would be eaten up by non-minimum wage-earners, the majority of the workforce (and thus the majority of consumers).
And much of those costs may also be passed on to products that aren't generally bought by minimum-wage earners, too.
But raising the minimum wage would affect the entire wage structure the whole way up, and $20/hr is enough to eat up lots of more-than-minimum-wage jobs as well.
Stores will just pass on the costs to the consumers.
Which just shows that the minimum wage is a convoluted and inefficient form of welfare. If you want to help poor people, give them money. The end.
Which just shows that the minimum wage is a convoluted and inefficient form of welfare. If you want to help poor people, give them money. The end.
There are counter-arguments to be made.
1. should people be made to flip burgers or stand in cashier booths when society doesn't really need that. You can order off amazon for example, or eat healthier food that you make at home. Those burgers flippers could then instead be training to become engineers. It might take them longer than an academically gifted person, but they'd get womewhere if they didn't need to flip burgers everyday.
2. If you increase the price of labor by increasing the minimum wage, more opportunities for automation come into play. If burger's flippers were too expensive, restaurant chains might install robots that did it instead. Over time, burger slipping would be even cheaper than the previous minimum wage burger flipper.
1. should people be made to flip burgers or stand in cashier booths when society doesn't really need that. You can order off amazon for example, or eat healthier food that you make at home. Those burgers flippers could then instead be training to become engineers. It might take them longer than an academically gifted person, but they'd get womewhere if they didn't need to flip burgers everyday.
2. If you increase the price of labor by increasing the minimum wage, more opportunities for automation come into play. If burger's flippers were too expensive, restaurant chains might install robots that did it instead. Over time, burger slipping would be even cheaper than the previous minimum wage burger flipper.
If the customer here is a member of the "urban poor" (or what some commenters have decided to call "bums"), then I'd suggest that we start with some customer research. Do the jobless urban poor want to stand at a terminal in the street and perform menial tasks for spare change? Would this solve real problems for them on a daily basis? What happens when it's cold and snowy out? How many of them know how to use a computer, or read?
Buying into this concept as a way to solve urban poverty is no different than some Marketing VP sitting in her 50th floor corner office, thinking that she knows what her customers want from her company's web site without ever asking them. Before you start throwing out solutions to urban poverty, you might want to at least talk to one or two of the people whose problems you are trying to solve.