Nobody argues that. The OP said “the ultimate goal is...” and many people would argue against decreasing labor costs as the ultimate goal. More like a side effect.
If diversity caused lower wages then we'd see a proactive push among corporations to create inclusive cultures to invite that situation. But we don't, because it doesn't.
>we'd see a proactive push among corporations to create inclusive cultures to invite that situation. But we don't
Wait, are you saying there has not been a push among corporations to increase diversity?
>In 2003, MIT professor Thomas Kochan noted that companies were spending an estimated $8 billion a year on diversity efforts. But since Trump’s election, and with the emergence of movements like #MeToo and Black Lives Matter, the industry has exploded. A 2019 survey of 234 companies in the S&P 500 found that 63% of the diversity professionals had been appointed or promoted to their roles during the past three years. In March 2018, the job site Indeed reported that postings for diversity and inclusion professionals had risen 35% in the previous two years.
watch the hands not the mouth - take a gander at the demographics of microsoft/facebook/google and you'll see how much they actually support diversity initiatives
1) Unemployment for software engineers is negative, there's way more room to hire skilled people before salaries become the reason people switch amongst top companies.
2) The poster I replied to stated that lower labor costs were the primary goal - and I refuted that. You seem to think I am stating something I am not.
>At this time, we think it’s important we put our money where our mouth is, and direct some of our discretionary funds — such as those typically used to fund a spot bonus program (which is separate and distinct of our annual bonus program) — to bolster our efforts to ensure our products and services are accessible to the people who need them,” she said. “This requires making a few small sacrifices, but why wouldn’t we do that?
>I actually kind of agree with this: Patreon is indeed a good way to earn enough money to buy dinner once a week or whatever. I guess it's also good for big time influencer types who are in growth mode and not worrying about their overhead. I just think it's a mediocre solution if what you want is to create a stable, predictable, and mature small business out of your work.
Pretty much, I was planning a system for bug bounties in 2011, after doing some back of the envelope calculations it turned out you would need 150% overhead for a $10 bounty with human due diligence and using master card/visa/pay pal. Oh and you could never support any project that has anything that the banks don't like, which then included porn, lgbt rights, fair use drm exemptions and a bunch of other stuff that I can't remember any more.
So you either had to convince people to use some alt-coin that wasn't a pyramid scheme, then build an escrow service on top of it, then use that service to fund the bug bounty program. Or you could just do everything terribly and end up with Patreon (which for the above reasons will get even more creator hostile in the coming years).
His critique goes well beyond just the quantity of data.
This is, perhaps, also the point where I should briefly mention the fact that the sort of knowledge with which I have been concerned is knowledge of the kind which by its nature cannot enter into statistics and therefore cannot be conveyed to any central authority in statistical form.
His bigger argument though, is even if it were effective, it is inherently undemocratic.
It will often be necessary that the will of a small minority be imposed upon the people
Exactly. This was a big part of the thesis of The Road to Serfdom.
He makes the point that so long as everyone is on the same page, working to the same goal, central-planning can be very effective. We can see this historically when a nation unites in defense, as America (and much of the world) did during WWII.
But when every person has their own goals and values, the central planning is no longer able to work effectively. It's not simply that it's hard to optimize that many functions at once, but that much more fundamentally, it's impossible for the central planner to know what those individual functions even are.
So the titular road to serfdom is when we agree to unite toward a central goal and thus subject ourselves to the central planning, that central authority can't easily be removed later when the shared goal has been achieved. Thus we find the central authority acting as an obstacle toward the individual goals that we've returned to.
The issue is that it's impossible for a computer to know what everybody values. When people participate in a market, this allows their values to be expressed: at a particular time, if they spend their money on A over B, then they valued A over B. Talk is cheap (people can say anything they want; it conveys extremely little information if they're not putting their money where their mouth is, so to speak).
On top of this, there is also all the distributed information about the available quantity and quality of goods and services in a particular location. The knowledge that a bunch of good machine parts for a certain piece of equipment are gathering dust in some warehouse can be extremely valuable if that equipment is in shortage, and that kind of data is routinely the source of profit to enterprising people in the real economy. It’s impossible to gather and process all that data and to make it available to everyone. It requires a distributed effort of people and firms acting in their own interests.
No, market participation just requires constraining one’s values to the options afforded by the market system. E.g., lots of people would be willing to take a pay cut for an extra day off per week but the job market does not provide that option. Why not?
>For no fault of her own, Katharina’s life is in shambles: her career is over, and her friends distance themselves for self-preservation. In desperation, she tries to meet with the reporter who has been hounding her. The reporter tries to extort her for sex, whereupon she shoots him. Remorseless, she turns herself in to the police for justice.
I think this describes Gawker more than the current howling mob. There is someone to blame at the end of the day, and there is a clear malevolence in motives.
Today what we have is closer to the medieval village in winter where there is nothing to do but go to the town square and watch the witches be humiliated.
>B) If the "western world" is the bar, the bar is low.
And yet China manages to fail this low bar stunningly. To the point that they are running actual concentration camps for Muslims. Something no Western government has done, and the last one to do finished paying reparations to the victims 4 years ago, 70 years after it happened.
Belief in infinite growth stems from an inability to understand how the exponential function works.
There is no such thing as indefinite growth, there is logistic growth between steady states. Pretending that immigration is always good is like pretending that drinking water is always good. Useful when you're in the Sahara, less so when you're drowning.
The US is currently in a situation where the labor market has an oversupply of people which is why real per hour worked wages are still at the level they were in '72. Adding more immigration now will only lower the living standards of the people already here, this will be the case until we increase the carrying capacity of the US economy with better labor laws, more government spending on fundamentals and better targeted research.
If you're going to be the one that explains to shareholders why their dividend is dropping each year but will only asymptotically approach zero so they should not fire you, by all means try. Somehow I don't think you'd be successful.
This is economics 101.