Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Friday November 20 2015, @11:39PM   Printer-friendly
from the this-ain't-dilbert dept.
We've previously covered Scott Adam's writings on gender discrimination. Now we see an expansion of his thoughts on the gender war and how it relates to terrorism:

I came across this piece on Scott Adam's blog and found it quite interesting. Thought others here might find it interesting too:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/133406477506/global-gender-war#_=_

So if you are wondering how men become cold-blooded killers, it isn't religion that is doing it. If you put me in that situation, I can say with confidence I would sign up for suicide bomb duty. And I'm not even a believer. Men like hugging better than they like killing. But if you take away my access to hugging, I will probably start killing, just to feel something. I'm designed that way. I'm a normal boy. And I make no apology for it.

Now consider the controversy over the Syrian immigrants. The photos show mostly men of fighting age. No one cares about adult men, so a 1% chance of a hidden terrorist in the group – who might someday kill women and children – is unacceptable. I have twice blogged on the idea of siphoning out the women and small kids from the Caliphate and leaving millions of innocent adult men to suffer and die. I don't recall anyone complaining about leaving millions of innocent adult males to horrible suffering. In this country, any solution to a problem that involves killing millions of adult men is automatically on the table.

If you kill infidels, you will be rewarded with virgins in heaven. But if you kill your own leaders today – the ones holding the leash on your balls – you can have access to women tomorrow. And tomorrow is sooner.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday November 20 2015, @11:51PM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday November 20 2015, @11:51PM (#266012) Journal

    I just wanted to post this when I saw this in the queue:

    Gender pay gap 'may take 118 years to close' - World Economic Forum [bbc.com]

    Like there will be employment as we know it 118 years. We may even destroy human civilization by then.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 20 2015, @11:58PM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday November 20 2015, @11:58PM (#266016) Homepage Journal

    Right but there is no wage gap. Well, no statistically significant one. Yes, grand total women made 77% what men made. And to do this they worked 76% as many hours. Math, bitches. Juggs, I demand a 1% raise.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 4, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Saturday November 21 2015, @01:14AM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Saturday November 21 2015, @01:14AM (#266033) Journal

      And these numbers you quoted came from where, exactly?
       
      I can 86% of 79% straight out of my ass too, but you don't see me flaunting it.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:01AM

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:01AM (#266047) Homepage Journal

        You're right, my bad; should have checked that source before I quoted it. The proper number is women work 69% the hours men work [bls.gov]. The 77% number was out of the mouth of every feminist ever, including the President. I'll take them at their word.

        Now you may say "but less women have jobs than men!!!1!1!!eleven!". That's true. That bullshit 77% number is what women made period vs what men made period. So, factoring in only those actually working [dol.gov] and accounting for hours worked, each man made 83% on average what his average female counterpart did per hour. Looks like I'll be hitting Juggs up for a 17% raise instead of a 1% raise.

        Facts. Ain't they just motherfuckers when they run contrary to your narrative?

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:28AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:28AM (#266054)

          As a very wise person once said, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Now we can add "Mighty Buzzard with statistics." Do you knot thing that wen thy comparizoned wymen's wages for equyl work it wassnt this all convoluted by numbers and such? Apples and oranges? Pears and bananas? Why is Dogbert a dog, anyway?

          • (Score: 5, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:54AM

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:54AM (#266066) Homepage Journal

            You're absolutely right. My statistics do not take into account experience or education or apples to apples jobs. Which has been a major beef from MRAs about the bullshit 77% statistic. And it's why I gave the feminists a bit of their own medicine back upside the chops just now.

            Now there have been studies done that took all these things into account as well as hours worked and the like. Know what they found? There is no significant statistical difference [huffingtonpost.com] in pay rates when you actually account for everything possible.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @06:02AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @06:02AM (#266096)

              And it's why I gave the feminists a bit of their own medicine back upside the chops just now.

              You would strike a woman? You, sir, are a cad and a bounder, who does not understand in the slightest what it means to be a man, let alone a proper gentle-man! Notice the prefix. I would suggest, that if you are so threatened by "feminists" as to feel a need to resort to blows, that you be my guest instead, and I will gladly knock you on your misogynist ass.

            • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:46PM

              by DeathMonkey (1380) on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:46PM (#266182) Journal

              All this study shows is that for "male and female college graduates one year after graduation," the wage gap is "only 7%."
               
              So 1: It does exist and 7% is statistically relevant.
              And 2: To get even this close you have to cherry pick the hell out of the data set.

              • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 21 2015, @03:15PM

                by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday November 21 2015, @03:15PM (#266201) Homepage Journal

                7% is statistically relevant

                Not really. Not when you consider women have far less self-confidence on average than men and that self-confidence is not just good but absolutely necessary in business. Honestly, I'd expect there to be a larger margin. That there isn't means women are getting paid more than they're worth.

                To get even this close you have to cherry pick the hell out of the data set.

                You were bitching about the data not being apples to apples and now you're bitching when someone makes the attempt? Pick an argument, you don't get both.

                --
                My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Saturday November 21 2015, @03:28PM

                  by DeathMonkey (1380) on Saturday November 21 2015, @03:28PM (#266204) Journal

                  You were bitching about the data not being apples to apples and now you're bitching when someone makes the attempt?
                   
                  No, I challenged you to provide some evidence for your claim that the wage gap doesn't exist. The best you could do is reduce the gap to 7% (in entry level positions only).

                  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 21 2015, @04:08PM

                    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday November 21 2015, @04:08PM (#266213) Homepage Journal

                    Normally I'd take you up on your offer because I've seen a study done more than twenty years ago that narrows it to a statistically insignificant amount but it's nap time for me and, really, the burden of proof is not on me. As the accuser, you're the one who has to prove it does exist. Without resorting to bullshit numbers that take almost no factors of actual life into account, thank you. Really prove it exists.

                    --
                    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:38AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:38AM (#266060)

          I fully expect this post to be modded flamebait just like the last one. I'll double down on your analysis: Women have 70-95%* of the purchasing power in the US.

          It really doesn't matter if men make more money. Men could make 40% more than women and women would still be better off. Assuming the average of 80% and equal pay is realized, that means the average woman in the US would spend 100% of her own money and then spends 60% of a man's money on top of that. What is the value of money if you don't get to spend it? Maybe we should be talking about the massive spending gap instead of the mythical wage gap.

          *Depending on who you believe: Forbes 70-80, WSJ 80+, She-conomy and a few associated women's rights organizations say 95%.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:51AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:51AM (#266065)

            What is the value of money if you don't get to spend it?

            How about saving it and properly investing it so that you can become financially independent and retire significantly early? But clearly wasting your money on frivolous nonsense is more important. You need to Consume to be happy, Consumer!

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @06:06AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @06:06AM (#266097)

              How about saving it and properly investing it so that you can become financially independent and retire significantly early?

              And die as soon as possible thus relieving the earth of your pathetic and meaningless existence. Yes, retirement. Ha.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:21PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:21PM (#266172)

                If I save my own money and retire early, that's up to me.

                And you seem to assume that the only useful people are those who are wage slaves. Why? A lot of that work is utterly useless. In my retirement, I have worked on many free software projects and did lots of volunteer work, which benefits others. So why do you assume you have to be a corporate drone to be useful? Is that the result of indoctrination?

          • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @04:29AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @04:29AM (#266078)

            As the old saw goes, women have half the money and all the pussy.

        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Non Sequor on Saturday November 21 2015, @04:35AM

          by Non Sequor (1005) on Saturday November 21 2015, @04:35AM (#266080) Journal

          Data I've been working with supports the 77% number on an hours adjusted basis.

          However, the ratio changes to 90% when you exclude people earning over $100,000 per year and 97% when you use a $70,000 threshold.

          Rates of men and women in management and professional jobs appear to be similar. If the source of this is in the upper end of the income distribution, I'd speculate that within the management and professional categories, there's still a differential where there are fewer women in the highest income categories. Business ownership may also be a factor.

          That's not quite the same thing as 77 cents for each dollar a man makes, but it's not necessarily something to be too dismissive of. One argument I've heard is that in order to get the biggest promotions, you really need to make a name for yourself in your 30s and 40s, and having children (and spending time with them) makes this more difficult.

          --
          Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 21 2015, @05:04AM

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday November 21 2015, @05:04AM (#266089) Homepage Journal

            Yup, making a personal choice to place family ahead of career is not something that needs society to adjust for though. You makes your choices, you takes the consequences, you don't bitch.

            The confidence deficit also plays a significant part no doubt. Women are significantly less likely to ask for a raise/promotion or to put their ideas forward unsolicited. It's a very, very complex matter and anyone trying to give you an exact number should be disbelieved before they even finish speaking and mocked until they pony up with solid, well-researched proof.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Saturday November 21 2015, @03:04PM

              by DeathMonkey (1380) on Saturday November 21 2015, @03:04PM (#266198) Journal

              ...making a personal choice to place family ahead of career...
               
              Not much of choice when men don't get paternity leave...

              • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 21 2015, @03:18PM

                by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday November 21 2015, @03:18PM (#266202) Homepage Journal

                S'a fair point. How bout some equality for the guys, yo?

                --
                My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Saturday November 21 2015, @03:59PM

                  by DeathMonkey (1380) on Saturday November 21 2015, @03:59PM (#266210) Journal

                  S'a fair point. How bout some equality for the guys, yo?
                   
                    You agree with the Feminists on this one. [huffingtonpost.com]

                  • (Score: 1) by jrial on Saturday November 21 2015, @04:54PM

                    by jrial (5162) on Saturday November 21 2015, @04:54PM (#266235)

                    Yes, that sometimes happens in discussions. Just because one disagrees with most of the propaganda doesn't mean they have to disagree with the sensible, rational arguments too.

                    I happen to disagree with most of the current feminist narrative. I don't think it's a problem if both genders aren't treated exactly the same in all possible situations. For me it's perfectly acceptable that group A gets some perks and some disadvantages compared to group B and the same holding true in the other direction. As long as on average, the perks and drawbacks cancel each other out. If a woman thinks I should be equally involved in the household (cooking, cleaning, groceries, ...), then I think it's not unreasonably for me to expect her to pull her weight too when it comes to maintaining the car, fixing the plumbing and electricity and what have you. But that would be a suboptimal solution; on average, women tend to be better at some tasks such as cooking, cleaning, or perhaps less patronising: interior decoration. And on average, men are better with plumbing, car mechanics (although that's quickly becoming a lost art) and other "manly" things. The solution is not demanding that each gender wastes their time on tasks they generally tend to be worse at to even out the load across all tasks. The solution is for each individual to focus on the tasks they're better suited for. If that means in my household I end up being the cook (I am quite good at it and enjoy doing it) and my wife the one changing the distribution belt, so be it. But since I am absolutely shit at cleaning, unless she's equally crap at it than I am, yes, I would appreciate it if she did in 1 hour what would take me 3 rather than giving me crap about me reinforcing gender roles.

                    --
                    Install windows on my workstation? You crazy? Got any idea how much I paid for the damn thing?
                  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 21 2015, @06:30PM

                    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday November 21 2015, @06:30PM (#266265) Homepage Journal

                    I agree with egalitarians. Feminists, that depends on if you're talking ones like Christina Hoff Sommers or the blue-haired, shrieking millennials who wouldn't piss on a man if he were on fire.

                    --
                    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 21 2015, @05:13AM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 21 2015, @05:13AM (#266091) Journal

          You didn't factor in risk. Every time someone runs at the mouth about how dangerous a cop's job is, someone else responds with a list of the most dangerous jobs. I've worked in some of those most dangerous jobs, throughout my life. I would counter the SJW's claims that I deserved more pay for driving a log truck out into the woods, than any male or female who sits in an air conditioned office with a coffee pot and vending machines only steps away from their desks.

          While few women are found in those dangerous occupations, the women who are in those occupations seem to get the same pay as the men. Which supports one claim that Adams makes - when women are willing to take the same risks as men, they get equal pay.

  • (Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Saturday November 21 2015, @12:09AM

    by Mr Big in the Pants (4956) on Saturday November 21 2015, @12:09AM (#266018)

    No no, they are perfectly correct.

    Its just that everyone employed except the 1% will be earning min wage. (which will be the equivalent of $5/hour) The rest will be a starving, pathetic example to everyone else what happens if you don't tow the line.

    Like now, but worse.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Saturday November 21 2015, @12:44AM

      by tftp (806) on Saturday November 21 2015, @12:44AM (#266026) Homepage

      It's just as likely that 1% will be managing all the resources of the society, and the rest will be sitting on basic income - which means minimal allocation of food and water to survive while living in rooms of minimum quality. This is a more logical endgame if you consider that automation will require fewer and fewer workers of higher and higher intelligence and education. Basic income is all fine and good, but who ever said that it will be plentiful? You can preview it today in Social Security offices.

      • (Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:13AM

        by Mr Big in the Pants (4956) on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:13AM (#266049)

        That is more or less what I was saying although you appear to be implying otherwise. There needs to be the destitute as a means of social control - it is not out of necessity.

        • (Score: 1) by tftp on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:22AM

          by tftp (806) on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:22AM (#266051) Homepage

          The only difference is that in my scenario only 1% will be employed - as owners, or as managers, or as engineers at huge automated factories. Everyone else will be unemployed, as the world will not require so many workers anymore.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 21 2015, @04:34AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 21 2015, @04:34AM (#266079) Journal

        This is a more logical endgame if you consider that automation will require fewer and fewer workers of higher and higher intelligence and education.

        That claim has never been true. This claim about automation eliminating jobs ignores that the only places which even appear to have this problem are doing their darnest to punish employers and leave potential workers unemployed or underemployed. If you make employing someone more onerous and more expensive, then you get less jobs as a result.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tftp on Saturday November 21 2015, @05:04AM

          by tftp (806) on Saturday November 21 2015, @05:04AM (#266088) Homepage

          That may be so. But how many places do you know in the first world that ever in living memory make employing someone less onerous and less expensive? The trend is actually in the opposite direction. It became very visible in last year when costs of Obamacare forced some businesses to cut hours of their workers, and in this year when some restaurants in Seattle had to close after the city increased their costs. Taxes of all kinds are very rarely going down. Someone has to pay for the basic income, and that creates positive feedback. This affects the picture of employment, I agree. But that's an integral part of the game - human labor will eventually become so expensive, compared to the cost of their product, that it becomes neither profitable nor even possible for a business to afford workers.

          For a reference, imagine that you want to open your own trench digging company and hire one (1) worker. How much cash will you need to cover your worker's salary and burdening for one year? How much can you charge for your worker's time? I believe that after very simple calculations you will conclude that you'd rather buy a backhoe and operate it yourself. My vision of the future is similar to that: the threshold of employing humans will be so high that only the most necessary and most valuable will be employed - in essence, just a handful of engineers who maintain the large machinery of an automated factory.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:13PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:13PM (#266169) Journal

            But how many places do you know in the first world that ever in living memory make employing someone less onerous and less expensive? The trend is actually in the opposite direction.

            That sounds very different from

            if you consider that automation will require fewer and fewer workers of higher and higher intelligence and education

            or

            as the world will not require so many workers anymore

            Automation may require fewer and fewer workers, but it has the effect of increasing demand for more efficient human labor as a result - it's a centuries old trend which continues through today (though the demand manifests in countries which are not actively discouraging employment).

            I'll take these concerns seriously when we start trying to fix the problem.

            • (Score: 1) by tftp on Saturday November 21 2015, @11:55PM

              by tftp (806) on Saturday November 21 2015, @11:55PM (#266397) Homepage

              Well, those two are completely different processes - one social, another technological. But they often combine to make things worse.

              Automation may require fewer and fewer workers, but it has the effect of increasing demand for more efficient human labor as a result

              That's my point, just expressed in different words. Only super-efficient workers will remain; only they can compete with a whole factory of robots. An engineer who can repair a robot is necessary, as [so far] he cannot be replaced by a machine. A cleaner of the factory floor can be replaced - and is replaced already. I have seen huge production lines where no human was in sight... nor one would be necessary... and it was back in 1980s. Not every product can yet be manufactured on such machines, technologically, but we are getting there. You can watch videos [youtube.com] of modern automated chicken farms - you will see thousands of birds in those videos, thousands of eggs, but no humans on the floor. Add a conveyor of chicken feed from an automated grain farm, and you are all set. Humans? A single shift manager is enough, plus a standby team of technicians who serve 10, or 100, such farms (depending on reliability of equipment.)

              though the demand manifests in countries which are not actively discouraging employment

              China and FoxConn come to mind immediately. But even then... over time, the society evolves; it wants to work less and to earn more. Already China is looking at Africa as a fallback location for their sweatshops. Chinese workers are already becoming more demanding - they - imagine that - refuse to work 24/7 for a cup of rice per day! But that demand - which is not entirely without reason - puts them behind the robots in cost and efficiency. Not every operation can be automated yet, so FoxConn is not yet a human-free facility; but it will be one - if not in ten years, then in twenty, or thirty. Eventually the industrialists of the world will run out of "countries which are not actively discouraging employment" - and employment will be discouraged everywhere. The majority of humans cannot compete with robots. Just ask bank tellers about that - they already are losing to ATMs and online banking. Tellers are still manning the windows, but as soon as the banks figure out that they can ask for a surcharge for human touch the lines to them will start disappearing. Automated checkout stands are showing up in Home Depot, Safeway, and many other places - loss to theft is less than the cost of a clerk. Vending machines can remove even that loss. You think Safeway cannot sell *everything* through the vending machines? They surely can, as the only missing piece today is the automated arm that would pick the package and give it to you - after you paid. What stops them? Just the insufficient ROI, so far, as hiring humans is still affordable enough. But fast food restaurants are already experimenting with sandwich [youtube.com] making machines [amequipmentsales.com]. That VisiDiner only costs $3,850 - about the monthly cost of a human clerk.

              So who will be still employed at that time? Only the technicians who keep the factories in order, and the engineers who invent new robots, and the scientists (who probably won't be replaced by an AI for a while.) Where the workers remain, say in construction, they will be driving not a shovel or a jackhammer, but a large, complex machine that does everything, more or less like modern re-pavement machines. A quote from Red Rising:

              The drillers of my clan chatter some gossip over the comm in my ear as I ride atop the claw drill. I’m alone in this deep tunnel atop a machine built like a titanic metal hand, one that grasps and gnaws at the ground. I control its rockmelting digits from the holster seat atop the drill, just where the elbow joint would be. There, my fingers fit into control gloves that manipulate the many tentacle-like drills some ninety meters below my perch. To be a Helldiver, they say your fingers must flicker fast as tongues of fire. Mine flicker faster.

              But even that is only good for a Sci-Fi story. In reality even a modern PC would do a better job than a human in that role. A human is not good when unwavering attention to millions of details is needed 24/7. A human is OK when it is necessary to evaluate a single problem offline and design a way around it.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 22 2015, @03:28AM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 22 2015, @03:28AM (#266418) Journal

                That's my point, just expressed in different words.

                No. When I said "increasing demand for more efficient labor" I didn't mean that demand was increasing only for labor that was more efficient, but rather that labor was becoming more efficient due to automation and hence demand for that labor increased as a result of that increased efficiency.

                China and FoxConn come to mind immediately.

                Exactly.

                Already China is looking at Africa as a fallback location for their sweatshops.

                Doesn't sound like you get it. Labor isn't just about sweatshops. We left the 19th century behind a long time ago.

                Not every operation can be automated yet, so FoxConn is not yet a human-free facility

                Again doesn't sound like you get it. FoxConn employs over a million people. They are far away from a "human-free" facility. Foxconn's automation not only replaces human jobs, it enables Foxconn to employ more people than ever before.

                Automated checkout stands are showing up in Home Depot, Safeway, and many other places - loss to theft is less than the cost of a clerk.

                Once again, in countries such as the US where Home Depot, Safeway, and many other places are strongly discouraged from employing clerks.

                So who will be still employed at that time?

                That depends. Does your system employ people or unemploy people? Answer that question and you'll answer the question of who is employed. It's worth noting that our modern societies have just over the past couple of decades massively increased the demand for relatively unskilled, high school level education. That's most of Foxconn's workforce, for example. The reality runs counter to the myth.

                A human is not good when unwavering attention to millions of details is needed 24/7.

                That's never been a human job.

                You have stated or implied a number of myths, such as the myth that automation reduces total employment, that the world is transitioning to highly skilled labor only, and that companies are only interested in the very cheapest labor that they can find. There's plenty of evidence that none of these claims are true. Global employment is higher and higher quality than it's ever been before. Even the lowest skilled people find better work than they would have before. Companies can't just be interested in cheap labor because otherwise why employ developed world labor at all? And how are you going to set up a high tech industry in a backwater part of the world? Where does the infrastructure they need come from? Automation has been increasing for centuries, when are we going to stop employing unskilled labor? Once again, these issues are not thought through and reality has been ignored.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:25PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:25PM (#266175)

          Well, if AI improves enough, it will hopefully happen on a mass scale.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 22 2015, @03:29AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 22 2015, @03:29AM (#266419) Journal

            Well, if AI improves enough, it will hopefully happen on a mass scale.

            What will happen? Everyone loses their job and becomes a deadbeat?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 22 2015, @07:46PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 22 2015, @07:46PM (#266610)

              Why shouldn't companies strive to be as effective and efficient as possible? If we hold back technological innovation merely so people can do jobs that they're inefficient at, then that is a travesty.

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 21 2015, @04:38AM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 21 2015, @04:38AM (#266081) Journal
      • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday November 21 2015, @06:16AM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday November 21 2015, @06:16AM (#266098) Journal

        It is "Tow that barge, hump that bale, get a little drunk, and you'll wind up in jail". Something about the Erie Canal. But the confusion is respendulant. If you pull on a line, you could be towing the barge, but usually you are toe-ing the line as in putting your foot-parts up to it.

        Just remember, it is the quality of our Grammar-nazis that is going to make SoylentNews stand head and shoulders (and thesaurus!) above all the other slightly geeky news aggregation sights cites sites out there. Treasure them.

  • (Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:42AM

    by Francis (5544) on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:42AM (#266062)

    That's globally, I'm not sure anybody claims that there aren't places where women are being paid less for the same amount of work. What you're failing to grasp is context. The context of the assertions that there is no wage gap is in the US and typically places where it's actually being debated. In places where the problem is most severe, there's little or no debate about the issue.