ravitation

>I see how poorly public sector works with public sector unions (especially police, but also city government generally) and I wonder if private unions won’t be just as bad for organizations.

I'm not a police officer, so can you provide some insight into how police unions work poorly for police officers (i.e. their members)?

>Do we really think the average worker is able to produce better outcomes than management?

Are we really that concerned with corporate/organizational outcomes, which seem to generally be doing pretty well? Maybe you can explain why we should be more concerned with corporate/organizational outcomes instead of worker outcomes?

>Maybe I’ve just been traumatized by the public sector unions.

I'm genuinely interested to hear more about this trauma, if you're able to share.

I find it very interesting the number of people in these comments making the simple claim that companies are often (at least often enough to be relevant) primarily motivated by things other than profit.

That's not even what neoliberals argue. The more compelling, but still not that compelling, argument is that certain types of profit maximization (usually long-term, "pro-innovation" profit maximization) inherently result in outcomes (maybe net outcomes) that align with pro-social (i.e. good for society) motivations.

The first link is discussing whether directors have a legal duty to maximize profit, which, as the article describes, they do not (their duties are open to much broader interpretation, which the article also describes). But, of course, there are numerous nonlegal forces that incentivize profit maximization, some of which are noted in the aforementioned article, and these forces are so strong and ubiquitous that their result - profit maximization - should be taken to be the default, which is what GP was saying.

Second, a random statement from Tim Cook, which itself is the subject of numerous forces and incentives, is hardly a strong case against the argument that, almost universally, corporations act to maximize profits (which, we as Americans, also often pretend is a universally pro-social motivator).

I'll also note that both of your sources focus on short-term profiteering (e.g. ignoring long-term benefits of renewable energy in favor of short-term profits), but are actually supportive of long-term investments, which are, of course, made with the purpose of increasing future profits (e.g. " it is [...] not corporate law [...] that [drives] so many of today’s public companies to myopically focus on short-term earnings; cut back on investment and innovation [...]" and "thinking in terms of long-term profit and returns is an important way of putting society’s resources to their best uses"). Focusing on long-term investments, in both cases, is obviously also motivated by profit (with the second arguing that long-term profits are actually a social good, which is the case only when compared with short-term profits).

Some very interesting trends here. Overall, Germany seems relatively equitable looking at the 6 year average.

Though the relatively large jump between 2018 and 2019 seems odd, I assume there's some additional factor(s) I'm unaware of affecting the totals.

Another longer, but also entertaining, source for the story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOttvpjJvAo

Also, for the record, I really enjoy/get a lot of value from your writing (if I didn't I probably wouldn't have criticized this tiny part of it).

That seems mostly irrelevant, aside from maybe providing credit. The way in which you "co-opt" it in this piece is not as some questionable hypothesis, whose veracity is unimportant - which seems to be your intent based on this comment and the rest of the actual piece. It's hard to see how you are not explicitly endorsing this hypothesis when you have unquoted lines like "but that answer is wrong, as can be shown by examining historical records of the time." You are not saying that Donald Gibbs thinks this is wrong, you are saying you think it's wrong.

Well, the main issue here is social mobility - most importantly escaping poverty and becoming middle class (and also not falling back into poverty), not just becoming wealthy. As has been stated elsewhere in these comments, there is enormous selection bias regarding those that choose to immigrate to the US from other developed countries in an effort to "become wealthy."

With this in mind, generally speaking the US does not do particularly well on social mobility in relation to most other developed country, this includes the Scandinavian countries, the other anglophone countries, and western/central European countries... And, honestly, it really should surprise no one that social programs (including things like high quality public/affordable education and universal healthcare) improve social mobility for the poorer half of society.

Well there are over 1000 streamers making 6 figures over two years, there's just under 1000 streamers averaging over 6 figures a year (from only Twitch, i.e. excluding things like sponsorships and donations).

While I think Scandinavia might be ideal, one need not limit oneself to only those countries. Essentially all other developed nations are noticeably better at providing the things you've listed to the majority of their citizens than the United States.

You're getting a bunch of replies about different interpretations of the "American Dream" - interpretations that are not at all consistent with either the mainstream concept or the historical one.

Typically the "American Dream" has been centrally about freedom of opportunity, independent of social class or circumstances of birth, and the resulting possibility for upward social mobility through hard work (e.g. America as the Land of Opportunity). I think it's quite hard to argue that the United States is a leader in this category in the same way that it was 50 or 100 years ago.

> No amount of increase of general scientific literacy will allow public in general to read/understand highly specialized fields.

I understand this. There are first year graduate students in my field that have a far deeper understanding on the basic science behind certain papers than the general public, and yet even they struggle to parse those papers' conclusions. I mean this is even true for PhDs working in the same field, given the right paper.

When I say scientific literacy, I mean something far more basic than actually understanding anything to do with any specific field. I mean (among other things) understanding what you just said, that scientific fields are deeply complex, understanding how actual science is done (peer review, incentives and motivations, author bias, etc), and, given the first two points, that one should generally be skeptical when a citation consists of only a paper's title.

> But access to source can allow someone to validate the claims by a journalist or a public officials trying to bend conclusion to support their view.

I'm aware of this, and I said that I was in favor of open access as opposed to a simply closed system (i.e. open is a, potentially quite large, net positive). I'm just pointing out that the potential for misinterpretation/misuse is also present (which is also what the comment I was responding to was pointing out), just as there is potential for validation and combating misinterpretation/misuse. But, as you said, the vast majority will be unable to read/understand specialized fields, which might lead to (potentially more frequent) misinterpretation//misuse (even unintentionally).

I see this all the time...

I work in medical research (basic science, not clinical), and I see people "cite" papers, based solely on their titles, without understanding, or likely even reading, the nuanced findings of the actual papers.

It's dangerous because it gives people, often with secondary agendas, the illusion of scientific backing when there really isn't any (or when it's far more nuanced).

I'll just note that I am still in favor of open over closed, but I think we're lagging in scientific literacy currently.

I think there is some nuance even for those with institutional access (e.g. field, institution, etc). I am also a researcher (though I hesitate to call myself that), and I read (or skim) through quite a few papers every week, and I very rarely run into a situation where I do not have access through the publisher. It's so uncommon that I very rarely think about (my own) access at all...

I only say this to provide my day-to-day experience, I do think Sci-Hub is a net positive, and I'm certainly in favor of seeing the status quo change.

This is my last reply. I'm done with this conversation, we've gone way too far from the initial discussion, and we're too far off on what "convincing" evidence is, or what is self-evident, for a productive text-based discussion.

> In particular, note you said that the Cato makes the argument that those making minimum wage are not "actually poor." In fact they make no such claim that there are not poor working a minimum wage job. Yours was a straw man.

I said "people making current minimum wage, or close to minimum wage, are not actually poor, or won't be in the long-term," they said "a lot of people who earn the federal minimum wage or just above it are not poor, or will not be poor in the longer term." I guess, for some reason, you assume the difference is "people" vs. "a lot of people," and that I therefore mean "all people." Your assumption does not make it a straw man.

> Only if you're oblivious to the fact it tells you exactly what happened to the individuals, which is that they were forced to either lose their job or compete for hours with the established staff at other locations.

This is an assumption. The ones that transfer to other locations now receive hazard pay, and, those unemployed workers potentially make hazard pay at new jobs, both of those are potential net positives... The article does, in fact, not discuss actual worker outcomes. Once again, even in the oversimplified world where jobs are simply eliminated, job loss is not equivalent to unemployment.

> Were you looking for a [...] paper?

Preferably, yes. "Concrete examples" are also called "anecdotes," and are not at all convincing of large-scale, job market-wide, patterns or effects.

> One example of those who end up engaging in independent contractor / self employment for less than minimum wage is gig workers, who often earn less than minimum wage and yet voluntarily choose to do so anyway [1]. Presumably if jobs numerous enough for the number of people working these gig jobs existed that offered them employment protections, many would choose that over independent contractor status where they are on their own if anything goes wrong.

That is another assumption. You "presume" that gig workers would choose non-gig work if given the option... With no actual evidence of that being the case at a meaningful level. People work "gig" jobs (e.g. drive for Lyft) for extremely varied reasons (some even do so in addition to other jobs, in fact, your source says most Uber drives do this).

> We have eliminated some, but others we've simply relegated them to the black market so that those engaging them either do it entirely without unemployment insurance and other labor protections, or they do it as an independent business or contractor.

Do you have any evidence that this occurs at any meaningful scale? This theory, while occasionally toted by conservative/libertarian think tanks, seems to rely on only 1 example (a New York city car wash that was already cutting jobs through automation), which was covered/written by a libertarian think tank.

> Somehow I doubt it was meaningless to the individuals who had the choice of move to a store not offering the hazard pay or lose their job. But meaningless from your privileged perspective of not being immediately affected by the loss.

No, the article you linked is meaningless specifically because it tells you absolutely nothing about those individuals (and also because it's purely anecdotal). When discussing wage increases (or hazard pay in this case), we typically care about the outcomes for workers. Not to mention the fact, as I said, that QFC has a vested interest in blaming regulation.

> Rich from a person leading off with the straw man attacking Cato with the false argument that they had somehow claimed there weren't poor people making minimum wage.

I literally linked the exact quote. They made two arguments, the second of which was that (verbatim) "a lot of people who earn the federal minimum wage or just above it are not poor, or will not be poor in the longer term." The entire point of the original article was that this is not true...

I apologize, I guess I mistook your misunderstanding as bad faith.

I feel like I must point this out, but no one is arguing that "jobs that have negative economic value" would somehow exist.

> Do I have evidence that employers will have to eliminate jobs if the position doesn't create enough value to cover the wage?

This is actually not at all what my second point was asking... The ask was, if we assume for a minute that a $15 minimum wage simply eliminates jobs (as opposed to bringing extracted employee value more in line with employee compensation and reducing employer profits), whether eliminating the jobs that cannot pay $15/hour would actually increase unemployment in such a meaningful way as to offset the potential benefits it would offer... The context being that we, as a society, have already decided that the benefits of eliminating (see assumption above) $5/hour jobs was worth whatever effect it had on unemployment.

With this is mind, it's obvious that QFC closing two stores is completely meaningless because it provides nothing close to an objective view on A) the effect on overall unemployment, nor B) the positive or negative effects it had on the employees whose jobs (according to QFC) were eliminated. That's not even to mention the fact that QFC has a vested interest in blaming regulation, or the fact that a single anecdote is not at all representative of the job market.

I'll just also add that it's very hard not to take what you're saying as simply constructing a straw man (as opposed to misreading or misunderstanding), given how completely unrelated anything you wrote was to my other comment.

1) I feel like you know that is an oversimplification, and therefore you are not arguing in good faith... Something I would really like to not do here.

2) Even if we assume that a $15 minimum wage would eliminate a notable number of jobs, elimination of jobs is not equivalent to unemployment. We, as a society, are okay with, going by your own argument, eliminating all the $5/hour jobs (with state minimum wages being $7.25+) because it does not lead to significantly less overall employment. Do you have evidence this would not also be true with a $15 minimum wage?

1) Yes, they did. The competitiveness of minimum wage has been in decline for the better part of the last 70 years.

2) Another piece of it, speaking to your example, is that women in the workplace were much more often "second-earners" 50 years ago. This is much less true today.

HN is not a place for this kind of talking past each other... There is a reason they are in the same paragraph.

EDIT: No one said it had no impact of employment (just as no one said there were no "student workers").

There is nuance to the cost/benefit of given minimum wages...

I am, almost word for word, citing the Cato Institute.

> First of all, one consequence of federal minimum wage hikes can be job or hours loss for low‐ wage workers, as we’ve seen, which can create poverty. Second, a lot of people who earn the federal minimum wage or just above it are not poor, or will not be poor in the longer term (think of working students, or second‐ earners in relatively affluent households working part‐ time).

https://www.cato.org/commentary/case-against-15-federal-mini...

EDIT: Before you reply with what I know you will, the reason the first and second argument above are lumped together are because the are both essentially myths (for example, see the original article), and the Cato Institute cites no actual data that either are, generally speaking, true.

It's treated as temporary as part of a justification for lower wages. This idea has been explicitly stated by those who oppose a $15 federal minimum wage, arguing that people making current minimum wage, or close to minimum wage, are not actually poor, or won't be in the long-term, because their current wage is temporary (the Cato Institute makes this exact argument and gives the example of "working students").

I meant that it's odd from the perspective of how unlikely this conversation, about ivermectin (or any of the things you listed), would've been even just two years ago.

EDIT: But, also somewhat odd how apparently disproportionately widespread the conversation about specifically ivermectin has become.

While this might be true...

Surely you're aware that, given certain national conversations, ivermectin specifically is known by far more than just those that grew up around livestock now?

A few things.

First, it's very strange that an antiparasitic like ivermectin has become known among mainstream laypersons.

Second, those articles are from the 80s, one is nearly 40 years old.

Third, various antiparasitic medications on the market for dogs contain ivermectin (e.g. Heartgard, Iverhart, and Tri-Heart) - these uses include the prevention or control of hookworm infections.

Finally, when the original article mentions "three types of drugs" to combat parasitic infections, they are referring to the benzimidazole, avermectin/milbemycin (or macrocyclic lactones), and tetrahydropyrimidine classes of drugs - where ivermectin belongs to the avermectin/milbemycin (macrocyclic lactones) class of drugs. With that said, ivermectin-containing compounds are actually a notable part of the research.

Your example, while potentially leading to a lower salary, is not actually an argument against public salary information, unless you assume the goal is universally higher salaries... Which, in your example, you explicitly state is not the goal of the worker... The prior is, in my opinion, generally the safer assumed goal.

Regardless, yes, more information yields the possibility of incorrect analysis, but I don't think that it's obvious that the information in this instance, the salaries of one's peers, would be of such complexity that knowing it would result in frequent misinterpretation to the detriment of the worker. In fact, given the stated goals of the worker in your example, even they use such information to their own (personal) moral, if not their financial, benefit.

I'm not saying there would be a 5x, or even 2x, salary. Only that if one cannot even negotiate for oneself, on the basis of some self-perceived productivity disparity, a higher salary (of literally any meaningful magnitude), then it seems quite dubious that such a productivity disparity even exists (especially at the perceived magnitude), given how flawed comparing "raw" productivity often is.

I generally agree with what you're saying, but it's often more simple than that. The greatest leverage in a salary negotiation comes from the freedom to actually quit, a freedom, especially in the United States, that many do not have (and never "earn"). While, on the other hand, the privileged are born with this freedom.

If one can't make a compelling case to be in a higher "band," and therefore get paid more, then I'm failing to see how they could possibly make the case that they are actually 2x productive.

I'm interested to know how having access to information, which the opposing party in said negotiation has access to, would hurt you?

It seems unlikely that it hurts you directly in your own negotiation, and more likely is a benefit. It might hurt you indirectly - in that it helps other employees, who are making less than you, potentially make more, and thereby reduce your own theoretical maximum pay (this doesn't seem very compelling though)... But, it seems naively egocentric to believe that, over the course of one's career, that indirect harm would be greater than the potential direct benefit...

What am I missing here?