40
41

Derleth loses his marbles (np.reddit.com)

Kai_Daigoji が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]Kai_Daigoji[S] 29ポイント30ポイント  (37子コメント)

We begin by taking a statement from Matt Yglesias out of context:

Most restaurants would keep longer hours (they're paying for the rent and the robots anyway), meaning many workers would get a raise and change shifts.

OK, moron, let's take it from the top:

  • The whole point to automation is to reduce labor costs.

  • Therefore, most workers will be fired in the ideal case you're positing.

  • Therefore therefore, the remaining workers sure as Hell will not be getting longer hours.

  • In fact, they will be getting effective pay cuts, because their hours will be shortened.

Yglesias' column is a hypothetical about new minimum wage laws leading to an increase in automation, and how that will be a good thing. So let's actually look at what he says will happen:

What about the workers thrown out of jobs by the new robo-waiters? Many would get new jobs, though the way this would work is often ignored.

So he begins by acknowledging that many of the minimum wage workers would be fired. (Keep in mind that's one of derleth's bullet points he called Yglesias a 'moron' for.) He continues:

Most restaurants would keep longer hours (they're paying for the rent and the robots anyway), meaning many workers would get a raise and change shifts.

Or in other words, as I read this, some employees would be fired, and some would be promoted, with automation taking over for the lower skilled employees who were fired. Essentially, instead of low level employees and managers, we'd have robots and (relatively) more managers. This is a bit praxy, but strikes me as eminently reasonable.

The advanced robo-restaurant technology would itself be a valuable American export good, and people would be employed in designing and selling it.

Derleth's responds:

Ah, the classic dodge: "You'll lose your job, but somoene else will get a job!" It would be funny if it weren't borderline psychotic. Let me give you a hint: I will care about that if and when that other person starts paying my expenses.

Freeing up labor by creating a new industry seems like a classic Kaldor-Hicks improvement. I share derleth's skepticism about transfers being made, but I don't think someone is a 'moron' for suggesting it.

But get ready for this:

Some low-wage work would be reallocated out of the relatively low-social-value restaurant sector and into things like child care and home health assistance, for which there is ample demand.

Every time you say something new, you plumb new depths of utter fucking idiocy. Jesus Fucking Christ, how much do you want to kill kids and old people?

We already have a problem with nursing home/assisted living workers taking blatantly abusive pictures of the people in their care and posting them to social media. How much more of that do you want?

This is just insane. I don't even know if it needs an RI. It's just madness.

We have a need both a) for more labor in these sectors, and b) a need for better training and screening. These are not mutually exclusive, or zero-sum. And arguing for things that would reallocate labor to them doesn't imply you want to kill kids unless you're a fucking psychopath.

Back to Yglesias:

Since poor people are now making more money, there will be opportunities to sell them things — things like restaurant meals! — that they couldn't previously afford, which in turn creates demand for new jobs.

Seems unobjectionable to me: productivity gains have widespread indirect effects. So why am I not surprised:

Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence.

Rather than explaining the problem, derleth takes a victory lap:

Really, there's no point in dissecting this one. I've already destroyed the foundations it rests upon.

Really? Lowering the cost of food (say, by lowering the cost of an input) doesn't help poor people, or affect the larger economy?

This myopic view of productivity gains explains derleth's view of Yglesias' last statement:

Right now the retirement age is rising from 65 to 67, and most people think it will have to go up to 70. If robots can do a lot of the work instead, we could put it back down to 65 or even to 62 while still growing the economy.

HOW? ... Do you honestly think robots pay taxes? Do you honestly think businesses will accept a tax increase after they fire employees and invest in robots?

Well, no. I think Yglesias thinks that when we make things cheaper, and lower the cost of living, it increases the amount of leisure workers are capable of taking advantage of. A lower retirement age seems eminently reasonable in a world where automation is reducing the cost of living (or in other words, increasing real wages.)

Stop talking. Just stop talking. You're apparently losing brain cells with every goddamned word.

It's like you read my mind.

[–]derleth -16ポイント-15ポイント  (36子コメント)

So he begins by acknowledging that many of the minimum wage workers would be fired. (Keep in mind that's one of derleth's bullet points he called Yglesias a 'moron' for.)

No, he's a moron for assuming it will happen one minute and then forgetting he's assumed it the next. He presumes that teenagers will be able to take part-time jobs at restaurants, forgetting he's assumed that those very jobs will be automated away!

Or in other words, as I read this, some employees would be fired, and some would be promoted, with automation taking over for the lower skilled employees who were fired.

I cannot see one single reason to assume there would be "managers" as such at these automated restaurants. Do you assume the machinery would need constant tending and monitoring? Because that would be a rather big flaw, which the machine-makers would design out.

Freeing up labor by creating a new industry seems like a classic Kaldor-Hicks improvement. I share derleth's skepticism about transfers being made, but I don't think someone is a 'moron' for suggesting it.

He's a moron for suggesting that a recently-fired worker would care one damned bit that someone else got a job.

We have a need both a) for more labor in these sectors, and b) a need for better training and screening. These are not mutually exclusive, or zero-sum. And arguing for things that would reallocate labor to them doesn't imply you want to kill kids unless you're a fucking psychopath.

'Reallocating labor' to childcare is not that simple, and if you think it is, you want untrained people caring for children, which means you want to kill kids. There. Simple enough?

  1. It requires training. This isn't free. It isn't even cheap, if it's any good.
  2. It requires screening. This begins at a criminal record check. It doesn't end there if you don't want to kill kids.
  3. It requires a cultural fit. That is, it requires that people be good with kids, and be psychologically fit to take care of them. This is, I suppose, part of screening, but it really deserves its own point.

So, which of those things do you want to skimp on to shunt all of the fast-food workers into childcare positions?

I think Yglesias thinks that when we make things cheaper, and lower the cost of living, it increases the amount of leisure workers are capable of taking advantage of.

Why would automation necessarily make anything cheaper or lower the cost of living? Are you assuming a progressive taxation scheme, or the absence of collusion in the business world, or both?

[–]say_wot_againSend questions to /r/AskEconomics 16ポイント17ポイント  (19子コメント)

No, he's a moron for assuming it will happen one minute and then forgetting he's assumed it the next. He presumes that teenagers will be able to take part-time jobs at restaurants, forgetting he's assumed that those very jobs will be automated away!

What he said:

We could give more financial support to college students so fewer of them are doing part-time food service work.

Sounds like he doesn't want students working in the food service jobs that they are getting fired from...

He's a moron for suggesting that a recently-fired worker would care one damned bit that someone else got a job.

Because of course Yglesias doesn't want us to expand the social safety net to take care of recently fired workers while they're looking for new jobs...

Why would automation necessarily make anything cheaper or lower the cost of living?

By drastically reducing the costs of production.

[–]EconHelpDead 12ポイント13ポイント  (4子コメント)

This is what happens when we let the lay people write RIs. We deserve people like /u/Derleth as punishment for our complacency.

[–]EdMan2133 9ポイント10ポイント  (3子コメント)

That's why I support mandating all R1s be written in Latin.

[–]EconHelpDead 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

Now this I can get behind.

[–]say_wot_againSend questions to /r/AskEconomics 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Latinitas delenda est

[–]Kai_Daigoji[S] 12ポイント13ポイント  (10子コメント)

I cannot see one single reason to assume there would be "managers" as such at these automated restaurants.

McDonalds today has more automation than it did 50 years ago. It still requires managers. Considering Yglesias specifically didn't say that the restaurant would be entirely automatic, your objection is irrelevant.

He's a moron for suggesting that a recently-fired worker would care one damned bit that someone else got a job.

He never said they would, so this is another uncharitable strawman.

'Reallocating labor' to childcare is not that simple, and if you think it is, you want untrained people caring for children, which means you want to kill kids. There. Simple enough?

There's something fucking wrong with you.

Why would automation necessarily make anything cheaper or lower the cost of living?

This is RIable itself. It lowers the costs of production, which makes things cheaper, which is the same thing as lower the cost of living, or increasing the standard of living.

Are you assuming ... the absence of collusion in the business world...?

I'm assuming competitive markets, yes.

[–]derleth -5ポイント-4ポイント  (9子コメント)

Considering Yglesias specifically didn't say that the restaurant would be entirely automatic

But that's the context into which he's speaking. That's the assumption everyone around him is making in this discussion.

He never said they would, so this is another uncharitable strawman.

My point is that he not only never fully addresses the problem, he never even seems to realize it is a serious problem.

There's something fucking wrong with you.

If you have no argument against my point, just say so.

I'm assuming competitive markets, yes.

Seems like an odd assumption, given the long history of monopolies and/or collusion.

[–]Kai_Daigoji[S] 12ポイント13ポイント  (8子コメント)

But that's the context into which he's speaking. That's the assumption everyone around him is making in this discussion.

The only one making that assumption is you.

My point is that he not only never fully addresses the problem, he never even seems to realize it is a serious problem.

He never claimed that a fired worker should care that someone else has a job. So I don't see how it's a serious problem, because you're the one making that argument, not him.

Seems like an odd assumption, given the long history of monopolies and/or collusion.

TIL competitive markets don't exist.