SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Tim O'Reilly has advocated for the idea of algorithmic regulation - reducing the role of people and replacing them with automated systems in order to make goverment policy less biased and more efficient. But the idea has been criticized as utopianism, where actual implementations are likely to make government more opaque and even less responsive to the citizens who have the least say in the operation of society.
Now, as part of New America's annual conference What Drives Innovation Around the Country? Virginia Eubanks has written an essay examining such automation in the cases of pre-crime and welfare fraud. Is it possible to automate away human judgment from the inherently human task of governance and still achieve humane results? Or is inefficiency and waste an unavoidable part of the process?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 08 2015, @01:19AM
II was referring to people who are employed but not making a living wage, you know, a wage sufficient to live?
I don't care. I was pointing out something more important than feelgood. People working is better than people not working.
OMG, REALLY! You're trying to say it's a favor to them?!? That has GOT to be the most depraved claim I have heard this year! It is the moral equivilent of "The bitch wanted it!"
No, it's beneficial to us that they have jobs rather than not. The obvious rebuttal to your whole line of thinking is that a wage below the so-called "living wage" is higher than zero. I'd rather that people were paid to do something productive than they not be paid and not do anything productive.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday May 08 2015, @02:46AM
You must not be aware that at some point, the profitability of an economic activity can get so low that it is no longer worth doing at all. That has to factor in the opportunity costs. So no, some work is not always better than none.
If what they are being paid for is productive enough to be worthwhile, their employers will find a way to pay them enough to live on if they have to. It is much better for society if they do.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 08 2015, @03:43AM
If what they are being paid for is productive enough to be worthwhile, their employers will find a way to pay them enough to live on if they have to.
And if they aren't worth minimum wage, then they don't get paid at all. That's what's happened to 33% of US residents without a diploma in 2010.
It is much better for society if they do.
And it is much worse for society, if these people aren't employed. Look we're talking past each other at this point. All I can do is summarize my viewpoint. The world is growing wealthier at a remarkable rate. But the US isn't partaking in that growth. You should be asking "What are we doing wrong?" not "Let's dig the hole deeper."
I think it's for one basic reason, the US has put too many rules, regulations, taxes/fees, and other costs in front of the things that should be very valuable to us, particularly, employment. And the US worker should be taking a haircut. It's not the easy, low competition era of the 50s and 60s any more. Everyone has stepped up their game, the US and the rest of the developed world should do so as well.