Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don’t think that needed clarification from “pet”
Pets are treated pretty well usually? "Cattle" may be a better word?
Pet ownership is slavery
Women who make Samsung semiconductors are striking
171–180 of 224 posts
Re: Women who make Samsung semiconductors are striking
#172Re: Women who make Samsung semiconductors are striking
#173Samsung 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. I…
> "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 la…
> 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.
Re: Women who make Samsung semiconductors are striking
#174Why 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.
Re: Women who make Samsung semiconductors are striking
#175Re: Women who make Samsung semiconductors are striking
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
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…
> 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
Re: Women who make Samsung semiconductors are striking
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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 poi…
> 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.
Re: Women who make Samsung semiconductors are striking
#178Re: Women who make Samsung semiconductors are striking
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
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.
Re: Women who make Samsung semiconductors are striking
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> a deliberately hostile act intended to make this subgroup of workers feel unwelcome in the tech industry Flagging. Even ignoring the broader context of your post, this comment breaks HN gudelines[1]: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This comment also breaks HN guidelines:
"If you flag, please don't also comment that you did."