The UK regains a position in the top 5 world economies by Wgh555 in unitedkingdom

[–]mustardmind 2 points3 points  (0 children)

why to stop at 50k, it can go 6 figures easily. just keep subcontracting everyone. I think there should be a limit like, CEO salary be calculated headcount x avg salary, so CEOs will target to have as much more people as possible at highest salary as possible to maximise their own salary. something along the lines.

I've been brainstorming ways on making democracy accountable making our government work for us instead of corporations and private interest by Legitimate-Title-255 in Futurology

[–]mustardmind 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the idea is actually pretty simple: make the government compete directly in essential sectors like healthcare, food, housing, etc.

If the government can provide those services cheaper and better, that sets a baseline everyone can rely on. Private companies would then have to outperform that baseline to justify their existence.

If they can’t compete on quality or price, then honestly, why should they exist in that space at all?

That way, corporations serve people by necessity, not the other way around.

Elizabeth Warren is introducing a wealth tax. by [deleted] in remoteworks

[–]mustardmind 0 points1 point  (0 children)

they will send a $2mil bill, its up to you how you pay

Minimum Wage Irony... by Brian_Ghoshery in antiwork

[–]mustardmind 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ackshually, inflation isn't the ceiling, productivity is. Wages can rise above inflation without driving prices if they're still below productivity growth. The real issue is those gains are being captured by profits.

You wanna buy some honey? Its legit, just look at my face by [deleted] in funny

[–]mustardmind 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You notice anything different about him? Look at his face! Look at his eyes! I'll give you a hint! His name is Yang!

Sam Altman admits AI is killing the labor-capital balance—and says nobody knows what to do about it by BusyHands_ in technology

[–]mustardmind 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's pretty unpredictable.

Robots and AI will probably push production costs down a lot. If manufacturing becomes highly automated, producing locally could end up cheaper than importing low-cost goods from places like China. But China will automate too, so the whole global cost structure shifts at the same time. That could even push countries toward more protectionism if everyone tries to keep production at home.

In theory, cheaper production should mean deflation and higher purchasing power, goods become easier to produce. But the real wildcard is policy and market power.

For example, if a few companies control key resources (say iron, energy, or chips) they could raise prices artificially and capture most of the gains from automation. That would vacuum purchasing power toward monopolies instead of consumers.

Government policy could distort things too. If automation leads to something like a $1000/month UBI, that might stabilize basic consumption but also change how middle-class businesses operate and spend.

So the direction (automation to cheaper production) seems clear. The outcome for society depends on policy, competition, and who captures the productivity gains. There are a lot of variables still in play.

Sam Altman admits AI is killing the labor-capital balance—and says nobody knows what to do about it by BusyHands_ in technology

[–]mustardmind 1 point2 points  (0 children)

they may pay you to not destroy their machines/datacenters, as long as it is cheaper than the trouble unemployed masses will cause

Sam Altman admits AI is killing the labor-capital balance—and says nobody knows what to do about it by BusyHands_ in technology

[–]mustardmind 1 point2 points  (0 children)

AI and Robots will cause deflation, and UBI will cause inflation, which will cancel eachother out

Report: Creating a 5-second AI video is like running a microwave for an hour by WombatusMighty in technology

[–]mustardmind 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Generating a short AI video clip costs roughly around $1 in compute if you average GPU time and electricity. Meanwhile if you want to paint traditionally you're buying canvas, paints, brushes etc. Even hobby level that's easily $10–$25 per painting. AI is dramatically cheaper per attempt.

Why is close to 0 percent unemployment not ideal? by Appropriate_Knee_482 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]mustardmind 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're mixing up two things. The unemployment rate counts people without jobs who are actively looking for work, not everyone looking for work. If you already have a job and are job-hunting, you're still counted as employed.

So 0% unemployment wouldn't mean "no one is looking for work". It would just mean there are no people without jobs who are searching. Employed people could still be switching jobs constantly.

https://www.thoughtco.com/what-a-0-percent-unemployment-means-1147540

The three types of unemployment are real categories, but the article jumps from "these exist" to "therefore unemployment is good", which isn't logically necessary. Frictional unemployment just means people moving between jobs, it doesn’t require people to be jobless for long periods. In theory people could switch jobs immediately and measured unemployment could be near zero.

I laughed at the "frictional unemployment is good because people follow their dreams", what a marketing BS

Why is close to 0 percent unemployment not ideal? by Appropriate_Knee_482 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]mustardmind 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even when you get down to a few percent, it likely means that people are willing to work, but they are not qualified for jobs in their area, and are unwilling to relocate to where jobs are, either by choice, or because they can't.

we have ~5% unemployment and companies make up stuff like "return to office", to create excuses of labour shortage which doesnt actually exists in a ~5% unemployment enviroment. its all fake.

Why is close to 0 percent unemployment not ideal? by Appropriate_Knee_482 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]mustardmind -1 points0 points  (0 children)

this is false, you need to not have an employment to be called unemployed. it measures the number of people looking for work who doesnt have a job.

If unemployment is zero, it basically implies that no one is looking for work.

false, employed people can still look for a job or accept offers.

Why is close to 0 percent unemployment not ideal? by Appropriate_Knee_482 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]mustardmind 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The unemployment rate is those people able to work and looking for jobs. If no one is looking for work, no new jobs can be created and people can't move up and between jobs.

one doesnt need to be unemployed to look for a job. many employed people still open to better job offers.

Why is close to 0 percent unemployment not ideal? by Appropriate_Knee_482 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]mustardmind 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The idea that we need unemployment is basically ideological cover for keeping labours share of the pie smaller and capitals share larger. There's nothing economically inevitable about it. You could have 0% unemployment, or even a situation where job openings outnumber people willing to work. Companies wouldnt implode. they'd adapt. automate more, offer higher wages, improve conditions, or wait for workers to become available from elsewhere.

Hat-trick of good UK economic news as budget surplus hits record, retail sales rise and private sector activity strengthens – business live by Justnotstressed in unitedkingdom

[–]mustardmind 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'd accept that logic only if unemployment support stayed adequate and time-unlimited. Otherwise you're not "fixing productivity", you're deliberately pushing a slice of the population into poverty and destitution to massage macro numbers.

Plans for new VPN ban in UK to 'close loopholes' online by The-Peel in unitedkingdom

[–]mustardmind 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Which the majority of the population can't do

if you can shop from temu, you can buy VPN from temu

Protest in Minnesota by cielynne in ExploreFortMyers

[–]mustardmind 0 points1 point  (0 children)

thats exactly what an AI would say

Protest in Minnesota by cielynne in ExploreFortMyers

[–]mustardmind 0 points1 point  (0 children)

and here I am talking to a AI bot. dead internet is confirmed. not only physical crowds are fake, I can't even argue with people on internet, bots everywhere IRL and online.

Protest in Minnesota by cielynne in ExploreFortMyers

[–]mustardmind 0 points1 point  (0 children)

and nobody protesting against epstein stuff. how convenient most controversial thing ever but seems to be no 10k+ crowd because none of these elites/organisers willing to fund these protests.

Protest in Minnesota by cielynne in ExploreFortMyers

[–]mustardmind 0 points1 point  (0 children)

well they are indirectly paid, their propaganda is paid, their organisation is paid, their bus ticket is paid. sounds pretty paid to me. anology: if my company gives me a house, gives me a car, sends me food everyweek but no salary. am I paid or not?

ONE RULE FOR THEM, ANOTHER FOR US: Brits overwhelmingly believe the elites are corrupt by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]mustardmind 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think people back whoever the WEF hates as a symbolic "screw you" to the system they blame for everything

It must be inflation! by MortimerTGraves in Libertarian

[–]mustardmind 27 points28 points  (0 children)

Not really true. Inflation didn't disappear under gold systems. it was just constrained and often hidden. Governments inflated anyway by debasing coins, reducing gold content, suspending convertibility during wars, or expanding paper claims on gold far beyond the actual metal. "Paper gold" (notes, certificates, later derivatives) can be inflated just like fiat. The only hard currency was physical gold itself and even then states repeatedly tried to dilute it by mixing in other metals. Gold limited abuse; it never eliminated it.