[HN Gopher] Women who make Samsung semiconductors are striking
___________________________________________________________________
Women who make Samsung semiconductors are striking
Author : eric__cartman
Score : 195 points
Date : 2024-07-15 16:41 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (english.hani.co.kr)
(TXT) w3m dump (english.hani.co.kr)
| eric__cartman wrote:
| I had to slightly rewrite the title to get it to fit within the
| 90 character limit.
| tohuvavohu wrote:
| Perhaps rewrite the title to: "Mangled fingers, no time off:
| Women who make Samsung semiconductors go on strike"
| OJFord wrote:
| It has been edited since the submitted title GP was talking
| about, which was something like your suggestion; possibly by
| mod team to desensationalise (I don't know).
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| > Samsung's 12-inch line utilizes an overhead hoist transport
| (OHT) system, an automated transport network that operates along
| tracks installed on the ceiling, to move bundles of 25 wafers
| called "lots." On the 8-inch line, however, this transportation
| is done manually. There is much more market demand for 12-inch
| wafers, so Samsung has modernized and automated many processes.
| The 8-inch line, however, is outdated.
|
| While abuse of assembly line workers has always happened, as
| factories become increasingly automated,
|
| 1. Some workers lose their jobs to automation.
|
| 2. The remaining ones have a weaker negotiation power, as their
| jobs are on the way out anyway. So companies have even more
| incentive to abuse them.
| ryandrake wrote:
| > 1. Some workers lose their jobs to automation.
|
| > 2. The remaining ones have a weaker negotiation power, as
| their jobs are on the way out anyway. So companies have even
| more incentive to abuse them.
|
| I wonder what the eventual end game is, when you let everything
| play out to its logical conclusion. Eventually, business owners
| will no longer need people at all. They'll own a magical fully-
| automated factory that maintains and repairs itself, and a
| magical AI box that makes optimal business decisions, and then
| just sit there owning these magical things and harvesting money
| every quarter. Humanity consists of the few who own all the
| boxes, living in opulent luxury, and the many who don't and
| barely subsist enough to buy the products.
| Blackthorn wrote:
| Historically, violence has been at least somewhat successful
| as a disincentive for this. Hasn't always fixed the immediate
| problem but the threat of it, and eventual implementation,
| kept too much of a gap from happening.
| kybernetikos wrote:
| I doubt it'll work this time though though, since we are
| beginning to make big strides in automating violence too.
| The people who own the boxes will own the murderbots too.
| Blackthorn wrote:
| They always owned the police anyway.
| kybernetikos wrote:
| True but police are people too with their own
| expectations and morality and the number of police
| required to suppress a population is relatively large.
|
| There's still enormous room for abuse, but automating
| suppression drops even the imperfect checks that we have
| on the power of the few to oppress the many
| ryandrake wrote:
| > True but police are people too
|
| That can be solved, too. Some other (now deleted?)
| comment mentioned the inevitability of killbots, which
| will have to be created and deployed for this dystopia to
| stick. The elite living in Elysium will need a
| controllable, automate-able, way to keep the underclass
| in line, one that doesn't involve less-reliable human
| enforcers.
| shiroiushi wrote:
| >The elite living in Elysium will need a controllable,
| automate-able, way to keep the underclass in line, one
| that doesn't involve less-reliable human enforcers.
|
| I thought the rich elites living in Elysium had to
| completely depend on one weird mercenary dude on Earth
| with a shoulder-fired rocket launcher that somehow had
| rockets that could achieve escape velocity in order to
| protect Elysium from spaceships with illegal immigrants
| attempting to invade and use their magic healing
| machines.
| Blackthorn wrote:
| It's a historical fact that the police (or police-
| adjacent things before they were called the police) have
| always been quite willing to crack the skulls of workers.
| dotancohen wrote:
| > police-adjacent things before they were called the
| police
|
| It seems that you have some history you could share, I
| would love to hear it.
| reginald78 wrote:
| You probably don't even need automated violence for this
| anyway. High quality cheap pervasive surveillance allows
| you to deploy a small group of thugs to crush any smaller
| movements before they get large enough to be a real
| threat. Kill bots would make it even easier, more
| efficient and even less limited of course but I don't
| think it changes the equation much.
| alfiopuglisi wrote:
| If you own enough of these automated factories, you don't
| need to sell anything at all. Just produce whatever luxury
| item you want, in addition to mundane things like food and
| shelter (in the form of caviar and villas, because why not?).
|
| That will mark the time when technology is advanced enough
| that humanity will fracture with small independent groups
| going out and fending for themselves, possibly in outer
| space. Some SF scenarios call them "great houses", because
| they somewhat resemble feudal kingdoms where a kind of
| extended family rules, except there are no peasants.
| bibliotekka wrote:
| The richest and most powerful will lobby for universal basic
| income because it will benefit them at some tipping point,
| where the masses will need to be subsidized to keep the
| consumption machine running, maybe?
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| I think the middle class feels safer with the notion that
| the economy will not survive without them, thus whatever
| system results must maintain some sort of middle class. I
| don't think this is true at all, while not ideal many
| places continue to operate just fine with a few very rich
| and everyone else very poor.
|
| The consumption machine has a wealth effect which is an
| artifact of a ponzie economy. This mathematically cannot
| last forever, even if it has lasted for a long time and
| will continue to last for a long time. What matters to
| wealth is production. Traditionally highly technical
| production needed a decent middle class, but efficiencies
| mean fewer such people are needed to maintain the same
| proficiency. Coupled with globalization where a smart
| person anywhere can design technical things that can then
| be used everywhere. This decouples the wealth of the rich
| from the health of the middle class and the rich would be
| happily sacrifice the middle class in the alter of cheaper
| labor and will whisper sweet nothings in your ear while
| doing so. Not them personally but the people they pay to
| operate on their behalf. To me it makes perfect sense to
| promise UBI to undermine resistance and then not deliver on
| that promise to again undermine resistance. I think the
| middle class would be fools to believe that UBI will come
| and save them.
| kwere wrote:
| yeah, to bargain one needs strenght, on such scenario,
| UBI would mostly like benevolence of the powerful to
| stabilize their power structures. The masses will comply
| with UBI or not
| csomar wrote:
| UBI will benefit them in the sense that work will no longer
| be a right; since now you get that government pay check. No
| one wants to keep the consumption machine running for
| _your_ benefit. The rich can always get a bigger yacht and
| more holiday residences.
|
| UBI is a power play and the worst outcome for a sovereign
| citizen.
| hermannj314 wrote:
| In a post scarcity society, capitalism dies as will most of
| the population on Earth. The elite will live in an amazing
| utopia with AI slaves and like a few million fellow humans.
|
| Eugenics has always been the end game for the monarch
| class. Capitalism was a stepping stone.
| Aperocky wrote:
| I think this is purely focused on the supply side and
| neglecting demand and its role in the economy.
|
| The world economy today isn't driven by lack of supply (for
| the vast majority categories of products), rather it is by
| lack of demand. Whoever owns the demand owns the power in
| this dynamic. One can have all the factories in the world
| when consumer stop buying it's in for a rough time, like
| China is finding out.
| immibis wrote:
| Demand can be easily manufactured, it seems. Just look at
| all the bullshit people buy, from fidget spinners to
| timeshares to ready-made chocolate cake.
| ryandrake wrote:
| We have entire industries dedicated to creating demand
| for things that would otherwise not be demanded
| (advertising), and enabling people to buy things they
| cannot afford (debt). I'd expect both of these industries
| to balloon during the late stages as people get further
| squeezed out of voluntarily participating in the economy.
| corimaith wrote:
| On an aggregate level, no. Those things you've listed
| only occur when times are good and the gravy train is
| running. In a recession or hyperinflation it's a
| different matter altogether. China would certainly want
| that magical ability for their economy right now if they
| could.
| shiroiushi wrote:
| I don't think anyone with half a brain is buying a
| timeshare these days. Those things have been going down
| for many years now I think. They were a stupid fad, and
| the fad's over. Of course, some new bullshit fad will
| come along for people to waste their money on.
|
| What's wrong with ready-made chocolate cake? Freshly-
| baked might be better, but there is value in convenience.
| It's the same reason people buy pizza: if you're a master
| pizza chef and have a proper pizza oven at home, you
| could probably make a better pizza, and of course have it
| a bit fresher, but most people simply can't make a pizza
| that comes close to those made in real pizza ovens by
| people who make them every day. Some people don't even
| have an oven in the first place.
| huijzer wrote:
| I think you can find businesses like this already. They only
| have a few capable people and that's it. For example,
| MasterCard, Visa, RenTec, and probably some hedge funds
| somewhere.
| prewett wrote:
| You're telling me that of MasterCard's 33,000 employees and
| Visa's 28,800 employees, only a "few" are "capable"? Either
| management is negligently incompetent or, well, maybe the
| hubris is from a different direction.
| huijzer wrote:
| Well Visa does have about half a million net income per
| employee (assuming 17 billion net income which they
| reported in 2023), but yes you're right. I thought the
| number was lower.
| svara wrote:
| That's the argument for universal basic income in a nutshell.
|
| I'm not so convinced, I think this comes from the limited
| mental model of thinking of the economy as a system for
| making widgets.
|
| Rather, the economy is what happens when a society organizes
| its member's aggregated needs and desires.
|
| Being a valued member of a community is a rather basic human
| need. As such, the economy will find novel ways to meet that
| aggregated desire, if it's not being met anymore by jobs that
| employ many workers today.
|
| That's a rather unconventional view maybe, but I'm rather
| convinced it's the right one.
|
| Of course, it leaves all the details open and the path to get
| there might be rocky.
| its_ethan wrote:
| I think there's something very true about your idea here.
|
| I don't know that there's really any study or data that
| would back it up, but if a large amount of people don't
| have the structure and expectations that employment
| provides, things would deteriorate quickly.
|
| Obviously there's a spectrum here, and mindless jobs that
| pay as little as legally allowed aren't exactly providing
| fulfillment that people need. In any individual case, of
| course it makes sense to say "why should I/they have to do
| this? they should be able to chase passions or find other
| opportunity" but when you talk about that being "granted"
| to large chunks of the population (happening at essentially
| the same time).. I don't see it working out super well in
| the short or long term.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| _> Rather, the economy is what happens when a society
| organizes its member 's aggregated needs and desires._
|
| I like that definition.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| > As such, the economy will find novel ways to meet that
| aggregated desire, if it's not being met anymore by jobs
| that employ many workers today.
|
| I'm sorry. You are claiming that the poor will buy job-
| alternatives from the market once they don't have a job to
| sustain themselves?
|
| You seem to be missing a slight power imbalance.
| Teever wrote:
| If you could get your hands on a humanoid robot that was
| capable of repairing itself and with enough time and
| resources the ability to do full self replication by
| building up the necessary infrastructure to produce it's
| raw parts, what is the first thing you would do with it?
|
| I'll tell you what I'd do with it.
|
| I'd ask that genie for more wishes and have it start
| making copies.
| waynesonfire wrote:
| It'll be too expensive, you wont have access to
| affortable resources.
| Teever wrote:
| You expect the cost of a self replicating object to
| remain out of reach of the average person?
|
| Why don't you think it would follow the same cost curve
| as integrated circuits?
| svara wrote:
| Not really, no.
|
| First:
|
| Human desire literally knows no bounds, yesterday's
| luxury is today's basic necessity.
|
| If the prices for many products go towards zero, they'll
| become uninteresting and new products will be invented
| for which, for whatever reason, the price can't be zero.
|
| Second:
|
| The aggregated desire of billions of people is a
| formidable force. Whoever finds a way to satisfy it will
| have found a way to become incredibly wealthy.
| lesuorac wrote:
| > Human desire literally knows no bounds, yesterday's
| luxury is today's basic necessity.
|
| I hear this quite often but I don't think it's true. I
| don't think we've quite hit the stopping point yet for
| consumption but I mean you give somebody 2 Yachts and
| they'll probably try to sell both of them and bank most
| of that money. Like ask yourself what'd you do with a
| 100k, 1M, 10M, 100M, 1B, 10B windfall? Surely at some
| point you stop spending it on yourself (possible save it
| in a rainy day fund but w/e; consumption stops).
|
| Of course you give everybody 10M right now it'll cause
| massive inflation as there isn't enough stuff actually
| being produced. However, GDP (adjusted for inflation) has
| been increasing so at some point we'll make more stuff
| than one can reasonable consume and at that point it'll
| probably be Wall-E world. However, we are talking about a
| windfall of 10M which is 151x the US GDP/Capita so
| assuming current rate of growth remains linear it'll take
| another 250 years for the Real GDP/Capita to be 10M (~1k
| in 1790 [1] to ~66k in 2023 => 151 / 66 ~= 2.5).
|
| > If the prices for many products go towards zero,
| they'll become uninteresting and new products will be
| invented for which, for whatever reason, the price can't
| be zero.
|
| I generally like the argument that price (of a
| competitive good) should reflect the amount of energy it
| took to create. So if energy becomes significantly cheap
| in the future I'd expect a lot of new goods to be cheaper
| than today's goods (which also makes it easier for
| everybody's consumption to go up). Of course many goods
| are sold by few suppliers and monopoly pricing reflects
| the value perceived by the consumer so there's a giant
| wrench.
|
| [1]:
| https://www.measuringworth.com/datasets/usgdp/result.php
| svara wrote:
| > Surely at some point you stop spending it on yourself
|
| Only for a limited definition of "spending on myself".
| Self actualization is where desire truly is boundless.
| 10B is not a lot of money if your goal in life is now to
| end malaria or build a city on Mars.
|
| Another issue with your thought experiment is that you're
| now relatively rich. If in some distant future you have
| the purchasing power of a billionaire of today without
| being relatively rich, many people will be looking for
| new ways of outdoing each other.
|
| Of course, consuming zero cost goods is not a measure of
| wealth, so they'll be consuming whatever isn't zero cost
| then.
|
| > I generally like the argument that price (of a
| competitive good) should reflect the amount of energy it
| took to create.
|
| I don't. The price of physical energy fluctuates with how
| _difficult_ it is for humans to tap it.
|
| I prefer the mental model that the price reflects the
| human difficulty - perseverance, pain, time,
| intelligence, physical force, ... - required to provide
| something.
| Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote:
| You naively ignore the power of mentally ill people in our
| society. The social contract should be continuously
| improved to weaker their power and marginalize their
| obsessions but the corporate workplace is a rotting carcass
| for these dysfunctionally productive people to twist to
| their ends. They fight losses to their power over others
| more than anything else. It's terrifying to watch the
| banality and casualness that people engage in these
| antisocial behaviors with.
| ruined wrote:
| the economy is a _mode_ of organizing aggregated needs and
| desires, but it has never been total, and it is only
| capable of accounting for needs and desires that can be
| expressed financially.
|
| the past couple centuries have seen a great advancement in
| application of the economic mode to greater areas of life.
| there are both clear and nominal benefits and downsides.
| its advance doesn't necessarily mean it's satisfying
| equivalent needs and desires, nor that it is more effective
| or objectively preferable.
|
| it's well-documented that often it has advanced by threats,
| dispossession, and violence. and it's certainly possible
| that could continue, or that it might lose ground on some
| externality, or sustain hegemony by those same tools.
| throwway120385 wrote:
| It's also a pretty strong argument that the means of
| production should be taken from the upper class and shared
| when and if we get to the point where production is
| limitless.
| Tade0 wrote:
| The many will quite simply stop having children, because why
| bother? Then the mgic box owners will attempt doing something
| to have a population to sell to, but that will ultimately
| fail.
|
| It can be argued that it already started - globally the
| number of children born peaked around 2013-2017. The pandemic
| only accelerated the process.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| There was a short in the second batch of _Love, Death and
| Robots_ [0] (Netflix), that had a cop, whose job it was, to
| kill children of "poors," as the rich could live
| practically forever, and didn't want the competition.
|
| [0] https://www.netflix.com/title/80174608 (Volume 2: "Pop
| Squad").
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Well... yes, for capitalism, that _is_ the endgame. Neo-
| feudalism to be precise.
|
| And unlike the last times where feudalism was overthrown,
| these days police is often enough on par with the military,
| and the governments can track us whenever and wherever we
| want by the tiny little bugs we carry around in our pockets.
| Call for a revolution or for violent acts online, and a day
| later the FBI knocks on your door and takes everything
| digital you have.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| I worry that people don't understand how much violence it
| took to obtain enlightenment values and that such values
| may only be a quirk of history. We are very fortunate to
| live in such a time that is not the natural and default
| norm for humanity. I worry that attempts to further the
| gains will fail and we will not only not make additional
| gains but lose what we had with no possible way or regain
| even enlightenment values in our lifetimes or any number of
| lifetimes.
| shiroiushi wrote:
| >these days police is often enough on par with the military
|
| I'm pretty sure this is completely unique to the USA.
| AngryData wrote:
| And even then it is bullshit. US cops have dogshit
| training and the majority of them are cowards. Sure they
| got more guns than cops in other countries, but the
| population has even more.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Eventually, business owners will no longer need people at
| all_
|
| Maybe? This has been hypothesised since the Industrial
| Revolution. We're nowhere close to labour obsolescence.
| theamk wrote:
| Have you seen "good vs services employment" graphs, like this
| one? [0]
|
| Number of people producing goods has been shrinking for a
| longest time, its under 20% now. It'll likely keep shrinking
| as automation becomes more advanced, and in the future
| "service" would be much more important.
|
| When I was a kid, I've read some sci-fi stories about
| societies like those, where most people were working in
| service industry.
|
| [0] https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2023/0
| 9/0...
| hammock wrote:
| That graph is US only
| vivekd wrote:
| Good point - the graph being US only means it misses
| offshoring manufacturing jobs to places like China. We
| can't assume that the loss of manufacturing jobs was
| solely caused by automation
| eru wrote:
| Why call it 'loss', if it was outsourced? UnAmericans are
| also human.
| trealira wrote:
| Why do you think the word "loss" implies they think non-
| Americans aren't human?
| justinclift wrote:
| Pretty sure the point was that the jobs are just being
| moved around, not "lost".
| TOMDM wrote:
| Where else would you apply this reasoning? If I lose my
| phone it doesn't stop being a phone...
| Ajedi32 wrote:
| That sounds like a very low-margin business, if literally
| anyone can create and maintain it with close to zero human
| input. Its like the sci-fi equivalent of generating books
| with AI and selling them on Amazon. The cost of goods
| produced by your hypothetical business would plummet, and the
| real value would simply shift somewhere else that is still
| able to benefit from human labor or ingenuity.
|
| If you're talking about a world where AI has become so
| advanced that humans have literally nothing to contribute to
| society, in any field, then that's called a post-scarcity
| society, where the very concept of a "business owner" (not to
| mention the concepts of "business" and "owner") starts to
| lose all meaning.
| dangrossman wrote:
| The fictional automated business may cost tens of billions
| of dollars to build. That means almost no one, not
| literally anyone, can create it. If a small group of giant
| conglomerates are the only companies wealthy enough to
| build these automated factories, then there's no
| competition to drive down prices, and no automatic path to
| a post-scarcity society. Instead, it's the dystopia
| ryandrake described.
| Ajedi32 wrote:
| > If a small group of giant conglomerates are the only
| companies wealthy enough to build these automated
| factories
|
| So AI can build everything except the factory itself?
| Sounds like there's still a need for human labor.
|
| And if the opposite is true and AI _can_ build the
| factory, then it 's not going to "cost tens of billions
| of dollars to build"; the factory will be just as cheap
| as the goods its producing. Literally everyone could have
| their own factory.
| mewpmewp2 wrote:
| Maybe the resources, materials and land is the constraint
| here.
|
| So whoever builds the first one will be able to quickly
| expand, buy more land and solidify their lead.
|
| Land is likely what would cost billions in this specific
| scenario.
|
| If you don't have land or materials then there is nothing
| your AI can do, because it doesn't have anything to build
| things from.
| kwere wrote:
| high tech "machinery" is the constraint for most capital
| intensive businesses
| Ajedi32 wrote:
| I do think in the case where a company is benefiting from
| the exploitation of limited natural resources (like land)
| that don't naturally belong to any one person, imposing a
| tax on that does make sense.
|
| There was a podcast I listened to on this subject "The
| Plunder of the Commons" which I found really interesting.
| [1]
|
| That said, we're a _long_ ways away from reaching the
| point where literally not having anywhere left on the
| planet to build becomes your primary obstacle to starting
| a business.
|
| [1]: https://politicalorphanage.libsyn.com/the-plunder-
| of-the-com...
| hgomersall wrote:
| Or the state will do it.
| immibis wrote:
| Pretty much this. We see it starting to happen already.
| When's the last time a really big company actually did
| something to improve its product for its users and thereby
| get more money from users, as opposed to either raising the
| price, or improving its product for people who are not the
| users at the detriment of the users? They do this because the
| users aren't where the money is - money is concentrated among
| rich people, and the best way to make more money is to pander
| to other rich people.
| DonnyV wrote:
| The end game is once corporations don't need people to work
| or for security. Thats when kingdoms will return. They will
| act like monarchy's. We're already starting that transition
| now. Different parts of the US State departments have been
| captured by corporations. Bending them to their will. They're
| stealing public waterways, land, ground resources.
| galdosdi wrote:
| Not even. Humanity would consist of a small elite who owns
| everything, a small, continually shrinking middle class that
| consists of the remaining few workers who are actually needed
| for some reason (eventually, this tiny middle class would
| shrink to just the members of boards of directors, or
| something -- someone has to supervise the machines even if
| it's just rubber stamping them) and a vast underclass
| experiencing a life similar to an urban homeless today or a
| hunter gathering tribe in the amazon or something, existing
| in the margins, trying to steal, beg, scam a bit here and
| there to survive another day in whatever weird insect-like
| social niches are left to be found, that are just too
| marginal for the elite to even care about, even with their
| optimal AI.
|
| Look at life in Gaza or on the streets of Kensington today,
| and that is the sort of destiny we are bound for -- if fully
| replacing all humans really ever happens -- to become totally
| disposable people, who only continue to survive because
| someone has found it too much hassle to get around to getting
| rid of you at least just yet.
|
| But that's an endgame state, it's not a path for getting
| there, thank goodness. I believe it would not be so simple.
| It would happen gradually, and it would engender resistance,
| eventually violent resistance once people have little to
| lose.
|
| Power grows out of the barrel of a gun after all.
|
| Now, OTOH, if at that point, robot/AI weapons are sufficient
| so you only need 10 people to run the entire US Army.... then
| it's game over.
|
| But can you even get to that state without provoking a war
| before you get there? AI is extremely vulnerable in war
| because of its reliance on datacenters and fabs, which are
| fantastic military targets in wartime. So easy and quick to
| sabotage and so expensive and slow to build.
| SI_Rob wrote:
| I dread that we are going to see a _lot_ of of cults
| appear, and a disturbing concentration of political power
| around cult leadership as a social modality. With a large
| overlap with the despair-distraction-escapism industry as
| entertainers become increasingly valorized into spiritual
| and thought leaders, and eventually leaders, full stop.
|
| They will, as did monarchs in feudal times, draw their
| power base from the multitude of disenfranchised commoners
| seeking guidance, respite from the bleak outlook for those
| with little or no prospect of upward mobility, and a
| rallying point from which to focus any semblance of
| pushback against the landed baronial classes. But they will
| all the while be paying a hefty tax to those who maintain
| the broadcast infrastructure that enables them to marshall
| and monetize their followers, so even these kings and
| queens will need to stay in the graces of some potentate or
| other.
| throwway120385 wrote:
| I would argue that we already are seeing cults appear and
| concentrate political power.
| cutemonster wrote:
| Kensington in Philadelphia right:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington,_Philadelphia
| the Crime section
|
| But you didn't mention the Soldier class. Some security
| people are needed, with an ok decent life, to keep the
| masses in check, and put up surveillance cameras and
| collect everyone's photos and biometrics
|
| A bit like in Uganda, _" Uganda's surveillance state is
| built on national ID cards"_
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40603692
| kriops wrote:
| Utterly absurd premise that doesn't even make sense as a
| dystopian thought experiment.
|
| 1. Supply drives demand. If nobody produces anything with
| which to buy the factory output, then the factories will
| not be valuable.
|
| 2. If most people are somehow living "outside" the economy,
| then they would form their own economy.
|
| Those are but two trivial rebuttals, and by no means
| anywhere near exhaustive.
| amelius wrote:
| That's not the end game because ultimately voters determine
| the rules of the economic system.
|
| And if voting doesn't work, there's the possibility of a
| revolution.
|
| So the capital owners will probably make it so that they
| please a majority of people just enough to stay in power.
| p1esk wrote:
| Or they simply kill everyone who complains.
| fuzzfactor wrote:
| >Humanity consists of the few who own all the boxes, living
| in opulent luxury, and the many who don't and barely subsist
|
| To me that represents lingering inhumanity.
|
| There are still plenty of people around the world who have
| maintained this high lifestyle proudly since their early
| ancestors first got into opulent condition. But there are
| even more descendants who have not been able to maintain a
| previous level of opulence at all and would do anything to
| get it back.
|
| Then you've got a whole bigger group who never came close and
| are even more envious than those who once had luxury. So much
| of the time it's easy to recognize that improved wealth is a
| result of fortune one way or another. When you get an
| aggregate amount of greed focused on manipulating fortunes,
| the best they can do for themselves is when everyone else
| ends up barely subsisting.
|
| IIRC, civilization was supposed to bring an end to the barely
| subsistence thing.
|
| Doesn't look too civil when things trend backward toward
| medieval.
| squigz wrote:
| Where are they going to harvest money from? If people can't
| work, they can't buy things.
| ClassyJacket wrote:
| Kind of like the system we already have with landlords.
| Teever wrote:
| The eventual end game is a self replicating machine.
|
| It'll start with just businesses owning the prototypes of
| them but once common folk know that such a machine is
| possible they'll build one themselves and then use it to
| build as many as they want.
|
| If it's a very large machine it will be miniaturized until it
| fits inside the human body and everyone will have synthetic
| ribosomes that can be used to produce whatever they want
| provided they have access to enough energy and raw material.
|
| What happens then is anyone's guess.
| Xen9 wrote:
| The end game is that average human becomes a pet.
|
| Horses weren't needed and they became pets; same for average
| human.
|
| This can only happen perfectly if the manufacturers
| eventually start to come after those who are self-reliant,
| which I believe is in line with the psychology of humans.
|
| Funny thing is this is ALSO analogous to what we have done
| certain animals.
| Xen9 wrote:
| Further analogy: Holding $100 US dollar bill in front of
| the pets, one can make them do lots of tricks. The pets are
| willing; like dogs that want to play, they will send tons
| of CVs to potential owners and give do anything to gain
| advantage in an interview.
|
| This makes me wonder, what happens to the dogs.
| csomar wrote:
| Onlypets.com. I see the future now.
| Xen9 wrote:
| The most correct use for this analogues of owners,
| hermits and pets is as tool of desconstructing the
| cyberpunk genre.
|
| It's no longer human culture in animal nature; but owner
| culture in anthroposcenic nature.
|
| What happens when one that can live centuries in an
| intellectual enlightened form lives in a world of
| pollutatition, cities, old infastructure--and of course
| the organic leftovers?
|
| ---
|
| Noteworthy to say this makes up perhaps half of
| cyberpunk's foundations--one should not ever define
| cyberpunk solely with this idea.
| Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote:
| You're thinking of slavery with extra steps.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| Don't think that needed clarification from "pet"
| cutemonster wrote:
| Pets are treated pretty well usually? "Cattle" may be a
| better word?
| jncfhnb wrote:
| A well treated slave is still a slave
| snapcaster wrote:
| Pet ownership is slavery
| john2x wrote:
| Horses don't revolt
| cutemonster wrote:
| Humans also won't, in tomorrow's surveillance society
|
| (or today's, in some places)
| Xen9 wrote:
| Soviet revolution comes to mind.
| cutemonster wrote:
| That's not comparable to Russia today. Now there are
| surveillance cameras, internet surveillance and machine
| learning, but not back then.
|
| Also it wouldn't have happened hadn't it been for
| Gorbatjov who introduced the glasnost (transparency)
| policy reform. Another Stalin, and history would have
| looked different.
| indigoabstract wrote:
| I wonder who decides which humans are needed and which ones
| are not (whom you call pets) and will it be someone other
| in the future than who has made those decisions today and
| in the past?
|
| What exactly will be different in the future from the
| current situation?
| csomar wrote:
| In this case, there is no end game since Samsung exports
| these products. The money will keep flowing. Your logic makes
| sense only in a closed system.
|
| The government will then redirect that labour to other stuff
| they can make and export; and make more money.
| cageface wrote:
| It seems increasingly likely to me that we're going to see
| the standard sci-fi script flipped. Instead of AI and robots
| doing grunt work for humans, AI will be doing most of the
| decision making, perhaps guided by a small human elite, and
| humans will do most of the grunt work.
|
| Making machines that think will turn out to be a lot cheaper
| and easier than building machines that can do general purpose
| physical work. People are cheap to make and maintain,
| especially if you're not very concerned with their well-
| being.
| eru wrote:
| People are pretty expensive.
|
| So far we have automated more and more, including and
| especially grunt work.
|
| Why would grunt work come back?
|
| Especially if you have machines that can help you design
| more efficient machines, and can help you re-design
| production processes to be more efficient and amenable to
| further automation.
| cageface wrote:
| People in first world countries, with education, health
| care, good housing etc are expensive.
|
| If you're willing to deny them all that then they're
| cheap and easy to replace.
|
| Whereas building a machine that can do even the basics of
| what a human hand can do is quite expensive.
| 01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote:
| Hopefully a land tax
| analog31 wrote:
| Going further, if nobody can afford to buy goods, then there
| will be no need for factories.
| geraneum wrote:
| > harvesting money every quarter
|
| How? Who pays for their stuff when most of the people are out
| of work. Sometimes people forget that the workers are also
| consumers. You may displace some, but to replace all, blue
| and white? Not that easy.
| shiroiushi wrote:
| >How? Who pays for their stuff when most of the people are
| out of work.
|
| The idea is that you sell your stuff to people who are
| employed in other industries/companies that haven't been so
| successful at automating all their employees out of a job.
|
| At Samsung, for instance, the workers are _not_ the main
| consumers: Samsung is a _huge_ exporter, and most of their
| customers are outside of Korea. Even if all their current
| and former employees suddenly decided to stop buying
| Samsung products, it wouldn 't even be noticeable in their
| balance sheet.
|
| What you're describing is a situation where all the
| companies have managed to eliminate most of their
| workforces, which has never happened. If it comes even
| remotely close to that point, societies will be forced to
| change their economies somehow, perhaps with UBI.
| alexey-salmin wrote:
| This is the theme of the "Twenty-fourth Voyage of Ijon
| Tichy" by Stanislaw Lem. Goods are mass-produced but no one
| has income to buy them. In the end they asked AI to find
| the way out of this deadlock. The AI found the solution of
| crushing them all and arranging their remains in visually
| aesthetic patterns. Funniest part is that they voluntarily
| went along with this plan because they could see no other.
|
| The whole "Star Diaries" series is such a gem. Many stories
| are exploring this question of "what is the endgame for
| societal trajectory X" in a form of some remote planet that
| Tichy visits on his trip.
| nradov wrote:
| The notion of a factory that repairs itself is so hilarious
| to anyone who has worked in a real factory. After a few years
| of operation, all of the production machinery is constantly
| on the edge of breaking down. It takes continuous effort to
| keep things working at all, plus there are always changes for
| design updates and new models.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| > I wonder what the eventual end game is
|
| The end game for the US is a small group of people(approx
| 36M) having fun. It's not too different from how it is now,
| but rather than be supported by human labor, it's supported
| by the labor of machines.
|
| If all wage labor is automated, and ignoring the issue of the
| social and political implications of a mass of people with
| nothing else to do, the remaining professions will be SME
| business owners, investors, and landlords[1].
|
| We can estimate the size of this population.
|
| There are approximately 28 million American SMEs[2]. SMEs can
| have owner-employees or hired labor, all of which will be
| automated. Considering SMEs as financial black boxes, the
| inputs, and outputs remain the same with the exception that
| salaries are replaced by a presumably smaller figure
| representing either the purchase or rental of automated
| labor.
|
| An estimated 7 million[3] high-net-worth individuals(HNWI)
| reside in the US. These are people with large investment
| portfolios who can live off gains indefinitely. It's
| difficult to estimate the number of full-time investors, but
| some estimate range from 200k-1million, and arguably, and
| these are folks who are doing potentially automatable work
| anyways.
|
| The upperbound of US landlords is 10.6 million people[4], or
| 7.1%. There are 5.9 million[5] commercial buildings in the
| US, compared to 44 million[6] residential rental properties.
| Let's estimate the number of commercial landlords to be
| around 1 million people in the US. We can also presume that
| maintenance and repair is automatable labor.
|
| The common features these groups share is the ability to
| generate income without labor. Presumably, this leaves them
| plenty of time to engage in leisure activities.
|
| Looking toward HNWI individuals as an indicator, they spend
| much more of their time engaged in "active" leisure, that is
| to say praying, socializing, exercising, hobbies, and
| volunteering[7].
|
| 1. I'm assuming self-employed people are automated away.
|
| 2. https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-
| agreements/tran...
|
| 3. https://www.capgemini.com/insights/research-library/world-
| we...
|
| 4. https://www.doorloop.com/blog/landlord-statistics-by-
| categor...
|
| 5. https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/built-
| environm...
|
| 6. https://www.statista.com/statistics/187577/housing-units-
| occ...
|
| 7. https://www.forbes.com/sites/traversmark/2019/07/13/how-
| do-t...
| yMEyUyNE1 wrote:
| > Eventually, business owners will no longer need people at
| all.
|
| Who will they sell to? For business/markets to exist, it
| needs people who can buy.
| mywittyname wrote:
| Eventually the "fully-automated factory in a box" will be
| widely available and the race to the bottom will work its way
| up the chain.
|
| You can already see this at work on platforms like Etsy or
| Amazon. People are buying tools like crickets, CNC, or 3d
| printers, then starting a business selling their products
| (often copies of other successful products) on these
| platforms.
|
| Eventually, someone will make copy-cat platforms, then
| someone else will build a tool for building copy-cat
| platforms, etc. There's no end game, it's just a loop of
| people trying to replicate the success of others.
| Nasrudith wrote:
| The "logical conclusion" is frankly a bad extrapolation as
| hinted by the number of times 'magical' appears in it. A
| magical fully-automated self-maintaining and repairing
| factory isn't a very good model for the real world even with
| advances.
|
| We've already seen how over-invested LLMs have gotten
| relative to their financial returns. A magical AI box with
| optimal business decisions is even more fantastical -
| computibility isn't there, and the resulting homogeneity of a
| 'perfect' approach in business strategy would by game theory
| promote decisions counter to the prevalent strategies.
|
| The more likely result in a dynamic world is a market crash
| in the domain of factories as everyone and their dog tries to
| get in on the "free easy money, last chance to get rich!".
| The end profit margins would be tight indeed and collapsed
| values of good.
|
| Not to mention the whole value of money is that it can get
| you other goods and services while shielding you from the
| logistical hellscape of trying to DYI. If everything is being
| auto-produced anyway then currency isn't even desirable a
| commodity, now is it?
| eru wrote:
| The negotiation power of workers largely relies on what their
| outside options are. If the rest of the economy is booming,
| they'll have more power, because they can walk away.
|
| If the rest of the economy is doing badly, they can't threaten
| to walk about (or at least they can't threaten that as easily
| and credibly).
| Joeri wrote:
| But the article mentions the 8 inch production line is always
| shorthanded on staff. You would think workers on a line that
| has shortages of employees would have negotiating power. The
| article also mentions better circumstances on other lines. The
| workers on strike also say they're not even really asking for
| better circumstances, just to not be treated like parts in a
| machine.
|
| I think this is a typical case of a bad manager at the top of
| the 8 inch line, and not of some larger theme of automation
| leading to worker abuse.
| eternauta3k wrote:
| > You would think workers on a line that has shortages of
| employees would have negotiating power
|
| Depends on whether we re looking at a system in equilibrium
| or out of equilibrium. Maybe the "shortage" is the
| equilibrium for the unyielding crappy conditions the company
| is offering.
| fred_is_fred wrote:
| Swap out 12-inch line to something like weaving and you could
| have posted this in 1770.
| colordrops wrote:
| My brother had back surgery in Scottsdale, and his roommate was
| getting surgery to repair his pinky, which was destroyed in a
| welding incident in the Samsung plant being built in the area.
| Made me wonder about the safety of the workers there.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Burns, cuts, mashed fingers, all part of the picture when you
| work in trades, especially construction.
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| > which was destroyed in a welding incident in the Samsung
| plant being built in the area
|
| I am confused. How is this related to the story? Is Samsung the
| general contractor to build the fab? I doubt it.
| lmpdev wrote:
| How does one destroy a pinky from welding?
|
| I don't doubt it, just curious how that occurred?
| marcodiego wrote:
| I worked for a giant Korean company (offshore, third party
| outsource). Their view of workers right is very different from
| "the west". It was said, among my colleagues at the time, that in
| our country their main headquarters had a law office exclusively
| to handle abuse cases quickly. I heard stories of Korean lifting
| their voices and a case where the chair of a programmer was
| kicked by a Korean manager because he let a bug pass.
|
| AFAIK, this is actually part of their culture. They are very
| strict about hierarchy and it is seen as a kind of honor that is
| ingrained even in their language. There's even a case where this
| resulted in an air disaster.
|
| I really hope that the current trend of culture interchange
| between Korea an "the west" may influence both societies for the
| better.
| alephnerd wrote:
| I'd be pessimistic about a cultural change - look at what
| happened to the Doctor's strike.
|
| The only option is to become an expat and end up perpetuating
| the same traumas, as Pinoy, Thai, Chinese, Vietnamese, Indian,
| Indonesian, etc employees of Korean companies in their
| countries can attest to.
|
| Korean work culture is itself a reflection of Japanese work
| culture back when SK was Japan's version of Mexico before the
| 2010s.
| makapuf wrote:
| Can you tell us what happened to the Doctors strike ?
| alephnerd wrote:
| When Korean Legislative Elections were around the corner in
| early 2024, the incumbent govenenent announced an increase
| in the number of seats at medical programs in SK as a
| populist Hail Mary.
|
| Yet they did NOT increase the number of resident positions
| and left reimbursement rates at the same level as almost a
| decade ago. Also, the average doctor in SK works 100 hours
| a week instead of 60 like in the US.
|
| This meant that both junior and senior doctors ended up
| having to work more (they'd need to increase the number of
| medical students per training doctor post-degree) while
| still earning their existing salary and needing to pay off
| college loans (which in Korea are state school level
| despite incomes being a fraction of the US).
|
| Instead of negotiating with doctors, the government decided
| to instead revoke striking doctor's medical licenses.
|
| There is now a significant brain drain as Korean doctors
| look to immigrate to Japan or the US.
|
| And this is how a strike was resolved against white collar
| workers.
|
| Blue collar unskilled workers have even less leverage,
| because you can always import a "Trainee" from Vietnam,
| Phillipines, Indonesia, Nepal, etc for a pittance.
| pastage wrote:
| They seem to have dropped the plan to suspend licenses,
| but that is still a scary move.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-
| pharmaceuticals/...
| lifthrasiir wrote:
| Doctor's strike is much more complicated than the outsider
| view, because the Korean Medical Association had a very
| conservative view for the number of seats anyway. It is true
| that residents are indeed overworking, but that's more like
| 80 hours per week, not 100 as you have suggested; and
| established average doctors work even much less---48.1 hours
| per week in 2020. Resident doctors take such burden because
| they'll eventually get out of resident positions and most of
| them will enjoy the occupational leisure, which made doctors
| one of the most sought occuptations for the current Korean
| generation.
|
| The imbalance in medical accessibility and quality for urban
| vs. suburban areas was well known for decades so that the
| reform itself was very much desired, but the current
| government did it so ineffectively that they just had to give
| up after the strike.
| moandcompany wrote:
| Some aspects of hierarchy-based power dynamics (i.e. bullying
| and abuse) have been captured into a relatively new, and unique
| Korean word, "Gapjil" (gabjil).
|
| Gapjil (Korean: gabjil) is an expression referring to an
| arrogant and authoritarian attitude or actions of people in
| South Korea who have positions of power over others.
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gapjil)
|
| Gapjil is typically used to describe the abusive dynamics of
| one person above another in a hierarchy but has also been
| extended to describing the power abuse dynamics of large
| businesses interacting with smaller ones (e.g. small
| suppliers).
|
| As you mentioned, Korean language and society reflects a "high-
| context" culture where language itself uses and encodes social
| hierarchy position through the use of "honorifics," speaking to
| or addressing to people above by their title/rank or
| "treatment."
|
| "Over 80% of public perceive 'gapjil' problem as serious:
| survey" (2021)
| https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20210113000769
|
| The practice was made illegal in South Korea (2019) under its
| Labor Standard Act (LSA), but the effectiveness of that law has
| been scrutinized quite a bit, as many surveyed state it remains
| highly prevalent in the workplace:
|
| (Law fails to protect Koreans from workplace bullying)
| https://asiatimes.com/2020/01/south-korea-fails-to-stamp-out...
| palad1n wrote:
| Really? In 2019? This is the first I've heard of it, and I've
| been working here since 2017. I have no notion that this
| problem has been actually addressed anywhere.
| rasz wrote:
| > There's even a case where this resulted in an air disaster
|
| Lets not forget Sewol disaster 'recovery efforts'
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_A8dq2fA5o
| https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-sinking-of-the-...
| where no rescue was even attempted before letting President
| decide (establishing video feed to command center).
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| > "When someone is exempt from overtime due to a pregnancy, they
| don't send anyone in their place, which means those of us left on
| the line just have to do more work," said Worker A.
|
| > "Technically, we get an hour for lunch, but the machinery never
| stops operating, so someone has to fill that spot at all times,"
| Worker A added.
|
| Samsung being the successful company that it is, I can't imagine
| they don't know that they don't understanding that taking people
| out of a work team requires putting in a replacement, so I'll
| take "Malicious compliance with work safety" for 500 Alex.
| alephnerd wrote:
| This is the hidden reality of how consumer electronics assembly
| work.
|
| Doesn't matter if it's South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam,
| China, Philippines, India, Indonesia, etc - these are common
| work conditions, and it's usually the same managers in all
| those countries.
|
| If native SKeans, TWese, JPese don't want to do these jobs the
| employers just bring "Interns" from Indonesia, Vietnam,
| Philippines, etc and pay them $7,000 a year - which beats
| earning $2,000 a year either underemployed or doing the same
| job in those countries.
|
| It's horrid, but that's the reality of the gizmos you and
| everyone else likes using.
| vondur wrote:
| I rarely hear positive stories about the work conditions and
| culture in Korea.
| Kalanos wrote:
| To the employer: rotate them into different roles to prevent this
| kind of stress on the body/mind.
|
| To the employee: find a new job if you can get the above
| Kalanos wrote:
| can't*
| wormlord wrote:
| Samsung is the only job interview I have walked out of. I was
| told "you'll basically have zero wlb for the first 2-3 years
| while we are getting this fab off the ground". I immediately said
| I was withdrawing my candidacy. I can't imagine what the floor
| workers jobs are like if that's how demanding the SWE side is.
|
| It's especially soul-crushing when you think what the next Xnm
| process translates to in the real-world. Incrementally better
| performance for encoding cat videos or whatever. No thanks.
| bluedino wrote:
| wlb?
| knoebber wrote:
| I assume 'work life balance'
| esalman wrote:
| Work-life balance.
| wdh505 wrote:
| Work life balance
| Alupis wrote:
| > "you'll basically have zero wlb for the first 2-3 years while
| we are getting this fab off the ground"
|
| This doesn't sound like you were interviewing for a typical job
| with Samsung then. Getting a fab off the ground seems to imply
| it's a newly constructed, or under construction fab. You were
| interviewing to be part of the crew that builds and sets up a
| new fab.
|
| There's a reason salaries for this type of work as so large...
| wormlord wrote:
| That's fair enough. The salary was not high though lol.
| Alupis wrote:
| I'm just curious - was this a US based fab as part of the
| CHIPS Act fallout, or a fab in Korea? I would assume
| salaries are localized to COL.
| wormlord wrote:
| USA
| justinclift wrote:
| > There's a reason salaries for this type of work as so
| large...
|
| That's not the reputation that salaries of places like this
| have.
| Alupis wrote:
| In the US?
| stevage wrote:
| wlb?
| mettamage wrote:
| work life balance
| fortran77 wrote:
| I completely misunderstood the title, and wondered before I
| clicked how it could possibly have reached the front page.
| kbelder wrote:
| Didn't stop you from clicking...
| apantel wrote:
| Me neither.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Humans shouldn't be doing this type of work or most industrial
| line work, robots can do it easily 24/7
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Humans are probably cheaper in these cases.
| hbogert wrote:
| This is one of the reasons I'm pessimistic that intel will regain
| the Fab crown. How can you compete with this?
| idunnoman1222 wrote:
| With samsung?
| mathiasgredal wrote:
| In a society where the abuse of human labour was factored into
| the cost of the product, the 8-inch fab line would have been
| shut down, since the cost of the 8-inch wafers would now be
| prohibitive and not be competitive with the wafers from the
| 12-inch line. This in-turn would mean that customers would have
| to switch over to the 12-inch wafers.
|
| We are not supposed to compete on who can abuse their workers
| the most to improve efficiency and to cut costs. Thankfully,
| knowledge work does not seem to scale the same way as manual
| labour, meaning that more abuse of the workers does not mean
| more output over the long-term.
| fuzzfactor wrote:
| >Women who make Samsung semiconductors are striking
|
| I would say they're quite photogenic myself ;)
|
| One of the original advantages of semiconductors over vacuum
| tubes is that they were built to last.
|
| Tubes were expected to eventually wear out and be replaced sooner
| or later, sometimes on a regular basis. So they came in sockets
| and many were very easily user-replaceable.
|
| Other than that, the equipment was usually built to last for
| decades. It would have been the stupidest thing in the world to
| get a new radio every 5 or 10 years when all it needed was a new
| tube or two. And once you had a radio that was satisfying, most
| people never wanted to buy another radio again. They most often
| went forward focused on additional types of long-term technology
| acquisitions, like TV sets and an automobiles with automatic
| transmission.
|
| Semiconductors made almost all tube equipment obsolete as fast as
| the expanding variety of devices could be developed, so silicon
| booms are nothing new. Corresponding bust cycles must also have
| been endured by semiconductor companies who have prospered over
| the decades.
|
| The demand for semiconductors is real strong again, especially
| the more complex and innovative developments.
|
| But as time goes by, the demand for the semiconductors needed to
| produce products having long-term value is not the demand causing
| the complaints about overwork.
|
| It's the extreme demand for _disposable_ semiconductors, and the
| manufactured-for-landfill products that incorporate them, which
| has been gradually putting more pressure on fabrication workers
| in the same production facilities where it didn 't used to be
| this bad.
| fuzzfactor wrote:
| Didn't intend to hurt the feelings of any silent lurkers.
|
| Obviously there is more than one who would prefer a completely
| disposable society, built on the backs of exploited women.
|
| Not sorry.
| knighthack wrote:
| The word "striking" in the title initially made me think this was
| an article about the feminine beauty of women working in the
| Samsung semiconductor industry - i.e the adjective, not the verb.
|
| I thought a more apt phrase should have been "on strike".
| wavemode wrote:
| Somewhat similarly, I had to do a double take at a billboard I
| saw recently - "Southwest Pilots Are Ready to Strike"
| m463 wrote:
| After the mh370 murder-suicide theories...
| Am4TIfIsER0ppos wrote:
| Or the not-theory involving Germanwings 9525
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| I was looking at the pictures of their thumbs trying to figure
| out which thing was being struck against which other thing.
| rsynnott wrote:
| This might be a regional thing; "striking workers" in a
| standard usage in, at least, British and Irish English.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| Striking in American means it will be shocking and arresting
| to view or behold. The Grand Canyon is striking in size.
|
| Striking in EU is put on the calendar for Monday. The pilot
| union is striking until the coffee is served at the perfect
| temperature.
| sameoldtune wrote:
| That says more about your relationship to women than the
| headline
| hju22_-3 wrote:
| No, it really doesn't. It does, however, say something about
| the region wherein such phrasing fits. And it says more about
| how the title becomes misleading due to linguistical
| differences.
|
| And, since we're already doing this: since this is the way
| you reply, it says _even more_ about you.
| twen_ty wrote:
| Peak HN right here. Top comment is on semantics but not on the
| original content.
| jiveturkey wrote:
| I thought so too. I suspected clickbait but this is a
| paraphrase by the submitter. The original headline is
| reasonable.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Sir! The workers are revolting!
| undersuit wrote:
| I would need a definite article on women to consider striking
| to not be a verb.
| wtcactus wrote:
| Why only the women? Aren't men working in the same conditions?
|
| I've read the article, but it doesn't explain why the disparity
| between sexes.
| Nasrudith wrote:
| I've heard accounts of that type of sexism before in Japan.
| From what I recall hearing many programming shops are all
| female because the market as a whole is sexist enough that they
| can get away with paying women lower wages. I have neither
| cite-able sources nor first hand experience admittedly so feel
| free to take it with a grain of salt.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-07-16 23:02 UTC)