$15 was insufficient 20 years ago, and it's insufficient now. pay people enough to feed their babies or they will kill you.
"if you demand more pay, we will replace you with robots" is not a reason to pay people less than it costs them to work for you, it is a reason to have your corporation taken over by the state, or dismantle an unwilling state and rebuild one that does.
$15 was insufficient 20 years ago, and it's insufficient now. pay people enough to feed their babies or they will kill you.
i cannot make it clearer than this
capitalism only "works" if you employ enough human beings to be the face of your blatant exploitation.
go ahead and automate and watch how fast people sabotage your shit.
government - leadership of any kind, tbh - only exists to centralise the management of common needs, so we don't all have to individually scrabble to survive every day, on our own.
what doesn't work is trying to use communism to take care of your people while hostile world capitalists make you waste money on weapons to stop them bombing your nation into glass.
if communism doesn't work, why do you spend billions fighting it?
even if communism happened tomorrow, there would still be a lot of treaties and work for everyone.
More from Economy
Let's discuss how little you actually understand about economics and energy.
The first thing to understand is that energy is not globally fungible. Electricity decays as it leaves its point of origin; it’s expensive to transport. There is a huge excess (hydro) in many areas.
In other words, it can also be variable. It's estimated that in Sichuan there is twice as much electricity produced as is needed during the rainy season. Indeed, there is seasonality to how Bitcoin mining works. You can see here:
Bitcoin EXPORTS energy in this scenario. Fun fact, most industrial nations would steer this excess capacity towards refining aluminum by melting bauxite ore, which is very energy intensive.
You wouldn't argue that we are producing *too much* electricity from renewables, right?
"But what about the carbon footprint! ITS HUGE!"
Many previous estimates have quite faulty methods and don't take into account the actual energy sources. Is it fair to put a GHG equivalent on hydro or solar power? That would seem a bit disingenuous, no?
Well that's exactly what some have done.
The first thing to understand is that energy is not globally fungible. Electricity decays as it leaves its point of origin; it’s expensive to transport. There is a huge excess (hydro) in many areas.
Let's discuss the environmental cost of bitcoin. Because despite all the push for sustainable and green investment in the tech sector, there's a giant smoldering Chernobyl sitting at the heart of Silicon Valley which a lot of investors would prefer you remain quiet about. \U0001f9f5 (1/)
— Stephen Diehl (@smdiehl) January 17, 2021
In other words, it can also be variable. It's estimated that in Sichuan there is twice as much electricity produced as is needed during the rainy season. Indeed, there is seasonality to how Bitcoin mining works. You can see here:
Bitcoin EXPORTS energy in this scenario. Fun fact, most industrial nations would steer this excess capacity towards refining aluminum by melting bauxite ore, which is very energy intensive.
You wouldn't argue that we are producing *too much* electricity from renewables, right?
"But what about the carbon footprint! ITS HUGE!"
Many previous estimates have quite faulty methods and don't take into account the actual energy sources. Is it fair to put a GHG equivalent on hydro or solar power? That would seem a bit disingenuous, no?
Well that's exactly what some have done.