Yeah, you can do that up until you reach some core assumptions. Welcome to the inability of logic to prove itself.
It takes a dedicated conspiracist to declare how the elite are pulling the wool over our eyes at news of an incremental improvement in a record achievement.
And I'm glad the article says everything is just fine and there are no problems. What a relief.
I think trying to tie the argument by analogy here, through overextention, to our consumeristic culture, and our paradoxically populist dislike for it, is a step too far rhetorically.
I'd like to hear your thoughts, just detached from the metaphor.
That's not a usage I've ever seen. It's certainly true people are quick to dismiss established ideas from powerful sources for various reasons that vary greatly in quality, but I don't think I've ever seen that notion attached to "critical thinking" as a definition.
Actual critical thinking is trickier to define. I like to think of it as always trying to come up with objective ways of comparing and judging ideas. And, critically, coming up with objective ways to compare and judge those "objective" measures.
Hypothetical perfect markets are the most efficient way to find the value of anything. The assumptions of the efficient market hypothesis are bunk, and the assumptions of true neoclassical economics without it are also bunk.
Nope. I don't buy your argument. Nationwide deployment will almost certainly save more money than Seattle employees could possibly cost in total. This is just framing by the journal, and it's disingenuous framing at that.
I want to interject that none of us who agree with you just said believe that there is no level at which increasing worker wages starts to hurt an economy. Just that unreasonably low wages also hinder both human happiness and economic growth. Finding the ideal is both tricky and not without risk. There's a difference between wishful thinking (getting paid more is always better for everyone) and the argument we're actually trying articulate.
Any company not looking at automating away any level of skilled jobs at any point in history is just silly.
Employees cost money over time. Automation upfronts cost and then allows you to undercut competitors.
It's been that way since even before the steam engine.
Except the minimum wage hasn't actually increased anywhere but Seattle, Washington(and even there it's still being phased in), and more-over, one of the big principles that undercuts this argument is: "once you can automate away a job, is there any wage at which you wouldn't?"
Point of fact: McDonalds as a corporation doesn't sign those peoples' paychecks, at least if their business model hasn't changed since 2000ish. They do franchising, and make money on the fact that franchises have to purchase supplies from the company. This allows them to dodge risk on opening in poor locations, or personnel expenses.
Now, I'm not so thick-headed as to imagine that they wouldn't come up with something like this to help franchises with wage costs, but I'm also aware that this tech is coming to all sorts of places other than Seattle where the minimum wage actually went up.
I mean, maybe I'm just harking back to a past that exists only in my mind, but I seem to recall a time when the journal actually covered business in its pages, rather than regurgitating neoclassical economics talking points all-day every day, attempting to construe every single negative thing as a result of failing to religiously adhere to its principles.
Am I misremembering, and imagining the shift from kinda disagreeably right-leaning to fanatical?
More like "But I invested money and got the shaft". But yeah, when you're investing, you're definitely taking on risk.
I don't even know what you mean. Reality doesn't have morals, and the feds, at least to the extent they're involved, haven't been at all friendly to the notion of employers doing this.
Yeah, but it seems like the point was "Does Google have good ideas anymore?" not "Can I stick with my status quo come hell or highwater?"