[pron]

Because this won't improve their lives one bit. It will turn them into drones working for the rich without dignity or respect. Not every transaction that is marginally beneficial to both sides is movement towards a global optimum. On the contrary, arguments like this, talking about improvement is simple "gradient descent". Instead of throwing the poor an insulting bone, using their desperation to gain beneficial work w/o treating them with dignity (benefits, appreciation), I suggest turning the bright minds of Silicon Valley for some true disruptive thinking.

Think about this: is this suggestion going to provide the poor with true social mobility? Is this something our society can be proud of - poor people working for machines, as machines and getting paid by machines? Or is this another way to maximize profit by forsaking gainful, respectful employment, that can be somehow justified by "well, they'll be slightly better off?"

Why not suggest a mechanism by which tech companies can truly offer the poor a hand that will last for generations and create a better society, one we can be truly proud of, even if it's at the cost of loss of some short-term profit? An investment in society's future, if you like. Surely this is something that will be beneficial for everyone in the long run.

[orangecat]

Because this won't improve their lives one bit.

Proof by assertion is not terribly convincing.

Not every transaction that is marginally beneficial to both sides is movement towards a global optimum

"Marginal" is more than zero bits.

Think about this: is this suggestion going to provide the poor with true social mobility?

I could easily see that happening.

Is this something our society can be proud of - poor people working for machines, as machines and getting paid by machines?

Even in those ridiculous terms (applicable to many white collar jobs), yes, compared to common alternatives like panhandling or selling drugs.

Why not suggest a mechanism by which tech companies can truly offer the poor a hand that will last for generations and create a better society

Go for it. In the meantime, stop standing in the way of people who are trying to improve things because you don't think they're improving them enough.

[pron]

I don't consider actively exploiting the poor as "not improving their lives enough". Neither do I consider marginal benefit a positive if it comes at the cost of exploitation. Thirdly, I don't see anyone moving from selling drugs to doing menial mechanical turk work. Lastly - I'm not standing in anyone's way. By all means - go and try to turn America's poor into Silicon Valley's drones rather than invest in their future. In China's sweatshops I can at least be fairly certain that the workers are greeted with a "hello" in the morning. Perhaps someone is even concerned if they don't show up for work. If you want to build hi-tech services on the backs of people who don't get even that - go ahead. I'll be marveling at the this new turn hi-tech capitalism is taking, while sitting in my armchair sipping tea and reading Charles Dickens.

[ekianjo]

The "sweatshops" in China that you seem to criticize are the ones offering slightly better paid-jobs to the ones who have nothing at all, who live a miserable life in the countryside.

You seem to ignore that Everything derives from work. It gives the poor a way to earn a living, an activity to count on, some sense of being independent (instead of relying on welfare), and it enables them to save (even a little) money. It makes them responsible. It provides them experience that they can build on to become better at what they do and aspire for something a little more advanced. Most poor people who work do not stay at the bottom of their society for their whole life. Work is an effective social ladder, and where we stand right now is the downright proof of it.

"Exploitation" is only a matter of point of view. What you see as exploitation is not an universal, tangible truth for everyone in this world.

[lusr]

It's frustrating debating with one who employs such rhetoric:

1. "I don't consider actively exploiting the poor as "not improving their lives enough"." and "Neither do I consider marginal benefit a positive if it comes at the cost of exploitation."

You've framed the debate as "exploiting the poor" and "exploitation" yet do not give any reason for this other than an implicit claim that sub-minimum wage is exploitation. Let's say the minimum wage is $X/hr and this project allows these people to earn $(X - 0.01)/hr. Is that still exploitation? Why do you assume just because something MIGHT not be minimum wage that it's exploitation? Minimum wage and exploitation are only slightly correlated subjects.

All the original author is suggesting is to OFFER people jobs at a rate that the economy identifies as a sustainable employment opportunity. Kids selling gum at school might earn below minimum wage but it's their choice and their life to do. Nobody is FORCING anybody to take those jobs, therefore this is not exploitation and your dramatic and emotionally overloaded choice of words really does not help you make your point. You need to take a moment to define exploitation and I think in doing so you will see your argument is flawed.

2. "I don't see anyone moving from selling drugs to doing menial mechanical turk work" OK but that's your opinion and minimum wage laws block verifying what the reality of the situation is.

3. "By all means - go and try to turn America's poor into Silicon Valley's drones rather than invest in their future"

Why do you constantly resort to such emotive, overloaded language? There's no conspiracy here; nobody is trying to "turn" anybody into anything. What people ARE saying is "Hey here's a way some people can make some money, maybe some will find it acceptable" and people like you are saying "No I refuse to let anybody explore this possibility because I'm uncomfortable with a society where people are earning less than I think they should because of my beliefs about what people should earn, and I believe that my beliefs override freewill".

Notice that your argument, as far as I can tell after filtering out the emotion, is pretty much all about your beliefs about work and society, and has nothing to do with (a) the actual state of the economy at a given point in time or (b) the actual people out there who might benefit from the proposed arrangement.

[pron]

The reason I employ "emotional rhetoric" is because most people here have employed unemotional or "rational" rhetoric. This isn't statistics. This isn't an optimization problem. What I'm trying to do is to show that when you deal with actual people, people who have so far gotten the short end of the stick at everything, people with desires, people capable of feeling pain - you must at least consider an "emotional" approach.

And I don't need to win an argument here - I've already won. The simple fact is that people earning below average (or, rather, below median) in America are worse off than almost anywhere else in the western world. And that's the majority of the population. I was simply expressing my amazement that a certain world outlook - which I'm not even trying to argue 'cause this is not the place - that has traditionally been common among certain American social groups, has taken hold of SV entrepreneurs. I find this surprising because Northern California has had, for a long time, much sympathy for the counter-culture movement and to ideas of social justice. I also find it interesting that it seems like this approach is expressed here not because of some deeply held beliefs, some ideological values, but simply because of a technical, mathematical way of looking at the world. I was amazed and saddened at the dehumanization expressed here.

Now, I wasn't trying to change anyone's mind on politics, but just in case someone was expressing his views simply because he's grown accustomed to looking at the world through equations and algorithms, I was hoping maybe my words could jar him out of his technical sleep. Saying "Hey here's a way some people can make some money, maybe some will find it acceptable" without considering whether or not the idea is ethical, whether or not it is humane, seems so... callous. Of course someone will find it acceptable - like I said someplace else, someone will find it acceptable to sell his own organs for money; someone will agree to go into slavery so that he'll have something to eat - but that doesn't make it right. And I'm not even saying you should take my definitions for right and wrong. Use your own. But the first question you should ask yourself is "is this right?" and not, "will this work?"

(All of this is not to say that I cede the "rational" argument, or agree that unregulated free-market capitalism has actual economic merit - I don't. It's just more important for me to address the lack of ethical thinking, or the precedence of economic thinking to it rather than argue economics)

[Klinky]

I agree with your compassion for humanity, but I'd think you're overemphasizing the benefits of having physical co-workers & a boss. There are many self-employed individuals who relish not having to deal with such things. I'd rather see emphasis on how this system would help someone improve their life & their community, instead of just being exploited by rich people in a foreign country.