There are some parallels here to AI coding where even if the AI can write all the code, it's still valuable to have a human who can read and understand the code to verify correctness. The same is true of AI generated math proofs that humans will want to verify are around before they feed them back into the AI and build new insights.
Proof verification can be done automatically via Lean (or similar), so the parallel breaks down unfortunately. The only thing humans really need to verify is the translation of the theorem statement and the correctness of the proof checker.
The purpose of having a human look at LLM output is not just to verify correctness but also to understand a system. The parallel to math is that the value of a proof is not just the verification of a statement but also the working out of the mathematics required to establish that truth.
Setting aside this specific case, what is a business supposed to do if a union's demands are unreasonable and make it infeasible to keep the business profitable? If they try and replace the unionized workers, that is frowned upon and in some cases illegal. If they shut down the business due to no longer being viable, that seems to also be legally murky.
If a group of employees wants to band together and collectively bargain, that feels like it should be allowed, but if the company wants to completely sever ties with that group or if an employee wants to be hired and not associated with the group that should also be fine.
I agree that the balance of power is tilted in favor of capital over labor and that imbalance has been continually growing over the past several decades, but it feels like there should be a better solution than legally protected unions. For example:
- Increased relocation assistance for people who need to move for a job
- Improved safety regulations, which is a common reason employees decide to unionize in the first place
- Increased public sector employment to provide more alternatives to those in exploitative private sector jobs
All of these seem like better ways the govt can help workers than legally protected unions.
I'm not really going to answer this satisfactorily but the union doesn't have work if the employer doesn't exist. It's in the best interests of the union to negotiate in good faith to find the optimal arrangement for both parties. A successful, growing business means a growing union.
The idea is that it should be a win-win. It's perfectly possible for a union to be unreasonable and for both parties to ultimately walk away with nothing. This has happened countless times and is somewhat inevitable for unsustainable businesses (or businesses which rely on another industry to be in a growth phase).
We don’t know what they asked for or what Starbucks thinks it will cost them. EDIT: I saw the list of the demands and they are incredibly reasonable. Like, this is how a human being deserves to be treated reasonable.
The real point of Starbucks doing this isn’t to avoid having to cut into their profit margins a bit in that location but to suppress unionization in their other locations.
They have to shut it down early and often, or they’ll actually have to go to the table with a Union and that idea makes them crap their pants.
They would rather lose all profit from that location and send the message that unionization will get you fired.
> If they shut down the business due to no longer being viable, that seems to also be legally murky.
There's a difference between shutting down a business because some employees are starting to unionize, and shutting down a business because its financially non-viable due to extended negotiations.
If the business is somehow stupid enough to sign a contract with a union that makes them fail (and frankly, the union stupid enough to propose -- if the business fails, they still all lose their jobs) then that's really on the business, not the union. At that point they can go to court to try to fight the contract, or close up shop.
>Setting aside this specific case, what is a business supposed to do if a union's demands are unreasonable and make it infeasible to keep the business profitable? If they try and replace the unionized workers, that is frowned upon and in some cases illegal. If they shut down the business due to no longer being viable, that seems to also be legally murky.
Don't sign a contract that's unreasonable and makes your business unprofitable. That's what the company is supposed to do.
> All of these seem like better ways the govt can help workers than legally protected unions.
Won't happen without unions. Capital would gladly have you work 12 hour days without weekends, and we know this because it was true until people advocated for their own rights. https://www.pbs.org/livelyhood/workday/weekend/8hourday.html Capital will gladly have you work in unsafe or inhumane conditions if it means profits.
Maybe unions aren't the ideal solution, but the wealthy (i.e. the employers) have outsized influence in government. Who is going to speak for the people, if not a union?
> if a union's demands are unreasonable and make it infeasible to keep the business profitable
What a strange hypothetical! That's certainly never happened, and given the current power dynamic, incredibly unlikely to happen today.
Whatever regulations there are to protect workers were created because of unions, not instead of them. If employers had been given the choice, there wouldn't be unions or regulations.
Reminds me of my last job when an unexpected 1% drop in our team's primary goal metric would trigger VPs and directors to have us launch a full investigation into potential causes. But a similar unexpected increase, no one would bat an eye.
Similarly in the stock market, when things are going poorly, people are eager to understand what happened, so a "correction" is a comforting explanation that the underlying asset is still solid and it's just market dynamics at play. But when the stock markets go up unexpectedly, people are generally happy to accept their good fortune without thinking too much about it.
My understanding was Google's rebranding was mainly targeted at investors so that when financials were reported, it would be split out between Google vs. other divisions. It would make sense that most everyday people wouldn't know about this.
FB's rebrand seems targeted to everyday consumers, so I would bet their brand strategy would change to cater to that, in a way that Google/Alphabet never cared to.
The Saudis support US oil interest by for example selling their oil only in dollars and buying US weapons which props up our military industrial complex. This is why the US govt likes them and much of what Americans learn about the middle east is heavily influenced by what the govt puts out.
It’s part of an agreement between Nikon and King Faisal. The US commits to protecting the al Saud family (note: not the country, but it’s kleptocracy), in exchange the Saudis commit to holding their money in the US.
The world overall might have too high a birth rate but almost all Western countries have a birth rate below the replacement level of 2.1 (e.g. US, UK, AUS all at 1.7 [0] and falling [1]).
Unless you make up this difference with immigration, you have a declining population, which creates all sorts of short term issues.
Given that western countries have become increasingly hostile to immigration, especially from developing countries, trying to increase birth rate in western countries is a reasonable thing to explore imo.
Because its built on bullshit. With the automation we have today we could easily satisfy the needs of everyone with fewer workers. Its the obscene demand for constant growth that causes these issues.
The economy will also collapse if climate change keeps going, the oceans are empty, topsoil is gone, aquifers depleted, insect populations decimated...
> The economy will also collapse if climate change keeps going, the oceans are empty, topsoil is gone, aquifers depleted, insect populations decimated...
Yeah, there's a tension here it seems. But it's harder to fix a pension system with technology, and the system is much more socially fragile. There are policy approaches available in the US that might not be available elsewhere (e.g., lifting income caps on social security and medicare taxes) that will kick the can a bit further down the road, but it's challenging to make diverse societies peaceful and cohesive.
On the other hand, private enterprise and technology have a bevy of tools that aren't as readily available to policy makers. Government in principle can encourage more environmentally-friendly energy and food production, but they're not in the business of actually innovating.
