Subscribe to our Politics & Current Affairs newsletter
Amazon raises minimum wage to $15 for all U.S. workers
Political pressure works, y'all!
- Even seasonal/temp workers will benefit from the wage raise.
- The announcement is a direct response to public and political pressure.
- The change begins November 1 — Merry Happy HoliXmas to folks who work there!
OK, be honest... who just searched for a job on Google with this news?
Counting cash.
GiphyPoliticians such as Bernie Sanders have spoken and even introduced legislation about the travesty presented by Amazon workers surviving on food stamps to supplement their wages—especially in light of the fact that Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos makes more in one minute than many of these people do in a year.
"We listened to our critics, thought hard about what we wanted to do, and decided we want to lead," Amazon founder and billionaire Jeff Bezos said in a statement. "We're excited about this change and encourage our competitors and other large employers to join us."
It's a testament to the power of political pressure, and the high-profile nature of Amazon as a company, that it has decided to make progress in this realm.
By the numbers...
Amazon warehouse workers protest outside the Axel Springer building on April 24, 2018 in Berlin, Germany. Several hundred Amazon warehouse workers from Germany, Poland and Italy protested outside the Axel Springer building, where inside Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos was scheduled to receive an award for innovation. The workers claim Amazon pays too little and offers too few benefits.
(Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)
This will apply to 350,00 full time, part time, and temporary/contract workers in the United States who are vital to Amazon's ability to deliver as promised during the upcoming holidays. It also applies to Whole Foods employees, a company purchased last year by Amazon.
However, it also will be increased in some other countries— notably, Europe, where Amazon will raise the minimum to £10.50 (about $13.60) in the London area, and £9.60 ($12.33) for the rest of the United Kingdom.
In its press release, Amazon also stated that it will put pressure on the United States to increase the Federal minimum wage, which hasn't seen a bump from the current $7.25/hr. since 2009. The tipped minimum wage has been at $2.13/hr. since 1991.
Indeed, given the tighter labor market, though many of those jobs are low-wage and few benefits, this might mean other parts of retail and online sales companies will need to work on wages as well, or risk not having enough staff on hand for the coming holiday season.
In a speech today after the Amazon announcement praising Jeff Bezos and Amazon for making this move, Senator Sanders, who just last month introduced legislation called the Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies act, told the media in attendance:
"It is no secret that I have been a harsh critic of the wage and employment practices of Amazon and its owner Jeff Bezos. It has been my view that the middle class and working families of this country should not have to subsidize Mr. Bezos, the wealthiest person on Earth, because many of his Amazon employees earned wages that were so low that they were forced to go on government programs like food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing."
"Today, I want to give credit where credit is due," Sanders said.
Live on Monday: Does the US need one billion people?
What would happen if you tripled the US population? Join Matthew Yglesias and Charles Duhigg at 1pm ET on Monday, September 28.
26 September, 2020
Big Think LIVE
Add event to calendar
<p>
<br>
</p><p>
Is immigration key to bolstering the American economy? Could having one billion Americans secure the US's position as <em>the</em> global superpower? What if massive population growth could nourish rural economies and strengthen our country from the inside out? Perhaps these questions are provocative fodder for more debate and contention but, for Matthew Yglesias, asking them and arguing about them is part of the American way. Join him in a conversation moderated by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Charles Duhigg as they explore the case for one billion Americans.
</p><p>
Ask your questions for Matthew Yglesias during the Q&A!
</p><p><strong>Join the live stream at 1pm ET on Monday, September 28.<br></strong></p><h2>STREAMING LINKS<br><a href="https://youtu.be/FKaApFbTpx4" target="_blank">YouTube</a> | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/BigThinkdotcom/posts/10157677011223527" target="_blank">Facebook</a> | <a href="https://edge.bigthink.com/live_streams/111" target="_blank">Big Think Edge</a></h2>
Keep reading
Show less
Popular
The "singleton hypothesis" predicts the future of humanity
Philosopher Nick Bostrom's "singleton hypothesis" predicts the future of human societies.
23 October, 2019
Politics & Current Affairs
- Nick Bostrom's "singleton hypothesis" says that intelligent life on Earth will eventually form a "singleton".
- The "singleton" could be a single government or an artificial intelligence that runs everything.
- Whether the singleton will be positive or negative depends on numerous factors and is not certain.
<p><br></p></div>
<p>Does history have a goal? Is it possible that all the human societies that existed are ultimately a prelude to establishing a system where one entity will govern everything the world over? The Oxford University philosopher <a href="https://www.nickbostrom.com/" target="_blank">Nick Bostrom</a> proposes the <strong>"singleton hypothesis," </strong>maintaining that intelligent life on Earth will at some point organize itself into a so-called "singleton" – one organization that will take the form of either a world government, a super-intelligent machine (an AI) or, regrettably, a dictatorship that would control all affairs.</p><p>Other forms of a singleton may exist, and, ultimately, Bostrom believes one of them will come into existence. The philosopher argues that historically there's been a trend for our societies to converge in "higher levels of social organization". We went from bands of hunter gatherers to chiefdoms, city-states, nation states and now multi-national corporations, the United Nations and so forth, all the way to <em>globalization</em> – one of President Donald Trump's <a href="https://time.com/5406130/we-reject-globalism-president-trump-took-america-first-to-the-united-nations/" target="_blank">favorite targets for attack</a>. One view of that trend sees increased power going to multi-national businesses and world government bodies, making globalization somewhat of a punching bag concept, often seen not as a needed re-organization of societies around the world, leading to increased cooperation and a peaceful international order, but rather for its potential to bring about the loss of jobs and undermine the sovereignties of individual countries, making citizens beholden to faceless totalitarian bureaucrats from foreign lands. </p>
<p>But a singleton doesn't have to result in a bad outcome, argues Bostrom. In fact, he thinks it could also be a good thing or at least something that's neither obviously positive or negative – just neutral. One way to get to a singleton, according to the philosopher, is through technology. Improved surveillance and communication, mind-control tech, molecular nanotechnology and artificial intelligence could all bring about a singleton.</p><p>While some aspects of such technologies could certainly be unwanted and infringe upon individual freedoms, Bostrom thinks that there are situations in which there could be broad support for either a technological solution or a single government agency to take control of the society. As the world grows more complex, it's harder to achieve efficient coordination between countries and individuals within them. Tech solutions in conjunction with converging moral values and a democratic worldwide government could facilitate that. </p><p>Other scenarios, like catastrophic events, could also hasten the creation of singletons. The League of Nations, for example, came out of World War I, while the creation of the United Nations was a byproduct of World War 2. </p><p>Some may view the current political trends of rising nationalism, tariff wars and anti-immigration platforms to mean that globalization and an overall unification of people the world over is not coming any time soon. In fact, it feels like we are going backwards on such a path.</p><p>In an email exchange with <strong>Big Think</strong>, Bostrom cautioned us to not only look at what is happening over the course of a decade or maybe even a few decades. There are much larger, historic trends at work, which may see the current times as a blip rather than a change in the overall direction.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"I don't think there's much evidence in the year-to-year (or even decade-to-decade) political jitters for the question of the long-term fate of Earth-originating civilization," writes Bostrom, while adding "Still, it seems a bit sad whenever the world is moving in the direction of fragmentation and unilateralism."</p><p>He would rather see relationships between nations like the United States and China to be cordial rather than the "tussles and tensions" that we get now, with the added risk of a further breakdown in communication leading to even worse outcomes. </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"I fear that people have forgotten how bad the Cold War was or have learned the wrong lesson - "well we survived it so it wasn't so bad," warns the philosopher. "But I think it's more like somebody played a round of Russian Roulette and survived and then they say "hey that wasn't so bad, let's play another round!" With the opening of the nuclear archives, we can see how close the world came to the brink on several different occasions. Allowing ourselves to slide into another situation even remotely like that of the Cold War would be a huge mistake."<br></p><p>Political tides certainly can come and go. It might be long until we can definitively tell which era we are living in now. Either advanced technology and a spreading democratic order will create a global techno-utopia of the future or we will be enslaved by corporate hegemony and international oligarchs. There are also options in between. It's important to remember that once created, a singleton could become the way of life for the foreseeable future as it will take measures to stay in existence and to keep away threats.</p>
<blockquote> "Earth-originating intelligent life will (eventually) form a singleton," <a href="https://www.nickbostrom.com/fut/singleton.html" target="_blank">writes</a> Bostrom.<br></blockquote><p>Before you get set for your life to be dominated by a single agency, Bostrom's <a href="https://www.nickbostrom.com/fut/singleton.html" target="_blank">classic paper</a> on the subject lays out some specific pros and cons of a singleton.</p>
<p><strong><u></u></strong><strong><u>Four Advantages:</u></strong></p><p>- avoiding <strong>dangerous arms races</strong> – these are costly and potentially disastrous. Without many competing world powers, arms races would be unnecessary.</p><p>- avoiding a <strong>space colonization race</strong>, again leading to potential war and extreme expenses.</p><p>- avoiding <strong>inequality</strong> - a singleton could distribute wealth.</p><p>- avoiding <strong>evolutionary outcomes</strong> we don't want - a singleton (especially an AI) could better keep track of dystopian scenarios, like epidemics, and work towards the survival of the population as a whole.</p>
Want to Retain American Jobs? Stop Blaming Globalization
<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="oxK8j1xN" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="2cf425d7b91ed2a6fc4fe19d065f3408"> <div id="botr_oxK8j1xN_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media" data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/oxK8j1xN-FvQKszTI.js"> <img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/oxK8j1xN-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview" /> </div> <script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/oxK8j1xN-FvQKszTI.js"></script> </div><p><strong><u>Four Disadvantages:</u></strong></p><p>- having one entity control everything could lead to <strong>less control over decision-making</strong> and things could go bad for us humans. "All the eggs are in one basket" under this scenario, points out Bostrom.</p><p>- world without competition between states could be more vulnerable to <strong>systemic breakdowns</strong> than a world that is less arranged, in which "there are some processes that limit the destructiveness of certain kinds of failures," writes the philosopher.</p><p>- some singletons could lead to<strong> terrible bureaucracy </strong>and inefficiency – it's not certain whether that would outweigh the gains from such a coordinated society. That would depend on the "severity" of the problems.</p><p>- some singletons could be created by <strong>force</strong> - think Ghenghis Khan, Napoleon, Nazis and whatever new dictator is waiting in the wings. </p><p>Check out Nick Bostrom's paper<a href="https://www.nickbostrom.com/fut/singleton.html" target="_blank"> "What is a Singleton?" here.</a></p>
Keep reading
Show less
Learn innovation with 3-star Michelin chef Dominique Crenn
Dominique Crenn, the only female chef in America with three Michelin stars, joins Big Think Live.
24 September, 2020
Big Think LIVE
Having been exposed to mavericks in the French culinary world at a young age, three-star Michelin chef Dominique Crenn made it her mission to cook in a way that is not only delicious and elegant, but also expressive, memorable, and true to her experience.
<p>
Having been exposed to mavericks in the French culinary world at a young age, three-star Michelin chef Dominique Crenn made it her mission to cook in a way that is not only delicious and elegant, but also expressive, memorable, and true to her experience. Crenn will share the importance of gaining knowledge and inspiration from what and who surrounds you, building a unified and empowered team, and inventing a business model out of inspiration, as well as necessity.
</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Universe works like a cosmological neural network, argues new paper
Controversial physics theory says reality around us behaves like a computer neural network.
27 September, 2020
Synapses in space.
Credit: sakkmesterke
Surprising Science
- Physicist proposes that the universe behaves like an artificial neural network.
- The scientist's new paper seeks to reconcile classical physics and quantum mechanics.
- The theory claims that natural selection produces both atoms and "observers".
<p>Does the reality around us work like a neural network, a Matrix-like computer system that operates similar to a human brain? A new physics paper argues that looking at the universe that way can provide the elusive "theory of everything".</p><p>This controversial proposal is the brainchild of the University of Minnesota Duluth physics professor Vitaly Vanchurin. In an interview with <a href="https://futurism.com/physicist-entire-universe-neural-network" target="_blank"><em>Futurism</em></a>, Vanchurin conceded that "the idea is definitely crazy, but if it is crazy enough to be true?"</p><p>The scientist developed the theory while <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.09280" target="_blank">exploring</a> the workings of machine learning using statistical mechanics. He found that mechanisms involved in the computer learning were similar in some instances to the dynamics of quantum mechanics. </p>
<p>A computer neural network works via <em>nodes</em>, which mimic biological neurons, processing and passing on signals. As the network learns new information, it changes, giving certain nodes more priority, allowing it to connect bits of information in such a way that next time in will know, for example, what are they key traits of a "zebra".</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"We are not just saying that the artificial neural networks can be useful for analyzing physical systems or for discovering physical laws, we are saying that this is how the world around us actually works," writes Vanchurin in the paper. "With this respect it could be considered as a proposal for the theory of everything, and as such it should be easy to prove it wrong."</p><p>How do you prove his theory wrong? Vanchurin proposes a way. All you have to do is "find a phenomenon which cannot be modeled with a neural network." That, of course, isn't actually so easy to pull off, as Vanchurin himself points out. We don't fully understand how neural network and machine learning work and need to grasp those processes first. </p>
Vanchurin interview:
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="539759cbfd8fcd5b6ebf14a3b597b3f9"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bmyRy2-UhEE?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>Vanchurin thinks his idea can accomplish another purpose that has been the goal of modern physics – to reconcile classical physics, which describes how the universe works on a large scale, and quantum mechanics, the study of the atomic and subatomic level of existence. The physicist thinks that if you view the universe as working essentially as a neural network, its behavior under certain conditions can be explained by both the quirky equations of quantum mechanics and the laws of classical physics like the theory of general relativity devised by Albert Einstein. </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"The learning dynamics of a neural network can indeed exhibit approximate behaviors described by both quantum mechanics and general relativity," writes Vanchurin in his study. </p><p>Diving deeper into his theory, Vanchurin thinks it supports such apparent mechanisms of our world as <em>natural selection</em>. He suggests that in a neural network, particles and atoms, but even us, the "observers" would emerge from a natural-selection-like process. On the microscopic level of the network, some structures would become more stable while some would be less so. The stable ones would survive the evolutionary process, while the less stable ones would not.</p>
<p style="margin-left: 20px;">'On the smallest scales I expect that the natural selection should produce some very low complexity structures such as chains of neurons, but on larger scales the structures would be more complicated," he shared with <a href="https://futurism.com/physicist-entire-universe-neural-network" target="_blank">Futurism</a>.</p><p>He sees little reason why this kind of process would only work on just the small scale, writing in the paper:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"If correct, then what we now call atoms and particles might actually be the outcomes of a long evolution starting from some very low complexity structures and what we now call macroscopic observers and biological cells might be the outcome of an even longer evolution."</p><p>While he posits the neural network explanation, Vanchurin doesn't necessarily mean we all live in a computer simulation, like <a href="https://bigthink.com/mind-brain/are-we-living-in-a-simulation" target="_blank">proposed</a> by philosopher Nick Bostrom, <a href="https://futurism.com/boson-stars-black-holes-invisible-stars" target="_blank">adding the caveat</a> that even if we did, "we might never know the difference."</p><p>Vanchurin's idea has so far been received with skepticism by other physicists but he is undeterred. You can check out his paper for yourself on <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.01540" target="_blank">ArXiv</a>.</p>
Vanchurin on “Hidden Phenomena”:
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="18886ffd5e5840bb19d4494212f88d82"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2NDVdNwsHCo?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>Vitaly Vanchurin speaking at the 6th International FQXi Conference, "Mind Matters: Intelligence and Agency in the Physical World." The Foundational Questions...
Keep reading
Show less
We studied what happens when guys add their cats to their dating app profiles
43% of people think they can get a sense of someone's personality by their picture.
27 September, 2020
Photo by Luigi Pozzoli on Unsplash
Sex & Relationships
If you've used a dating app, you'll know the importance of choosing good profile pics.
<p>These photos don't just relay attractiveness; a recent study suggested that <a href="https://www.diyphotography.net/interesting-survey-shows-just-how-important-photos-are-in-online-dating/">43% of people</a> think they can get a sense of someone's personality by their picture. You might guess that someone who has included a photo of themselves hiking is an outdoorsy type of person. </p><p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Q3FOUqcAAAAJ&hl=en">But as scientists</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=8JxdDd8AAAAJ&hl=en">who study human-animal interactions</a>, we wanted to know what this meant for pet owners – in particular, male cat owners. </p><p>If you're a guy who owns a cat, what kind of effect does it have on suitors if you post a picture posing with your favorite feline?</p>
<p>Prior studies suggested that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2015.1064216" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">women do judge a potential male partner based on whether he has pets</a>. While they favor men with dogs, the results showed that they also give men with cats an edge over non-pet owners.</p><p>Because of this, we reasoned that men pictured with cats would probably be viewed as more attractive and desirable than men who didn't pose with any animals.</p><p><a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10061007" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In our study</a>, we recruited 1,388 heterosexual American women from 18 to 24 years old to take a short anonymous online survey. In the survey, we presented them with photos of one of two young white men in their early 20s either posing alone or with a cat. To avoid biasing the women's responses, we randomly presented which photo they saw first. Each participant only rated one man, with and without a cat.</p><p>Each time the participants saw a photo, we asked them to rate the man pictured on several personality attributes, including his masculinity, femininity and dateability. We also asked the women if they defined themselves as a "cat person," "dog person," "neither" or "both."</p>
<p>Most of the women found the men holding cats to be less dateable. This result surprised us, since previous studies had shown that <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2752/175303708X371564" target="_blank">women found men with pets to have higher potential as partners</a>. They also thought the men holding cats were less extroverted and more neurotic, agreeable and open. Importantly, they saw these men as less masculine, too.</p><p>This last point may explain our findings.</p><p>Prior research suggests that <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/29775193?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents" target="_blank">women often seek masculine men</a> – both in terms of physical appearance and behaviors. So the fact that women in our study found the photo of the man alone more masculine and more dateable supports the idea that women are likely to look first for clues related to masculinity when determining dateability.</p><p>We suspect old cultural norms may be playing a role in the responses. Past research suggests that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000034" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">male femininity and homosexuality are still perceived to be connected</a>. Since cats are sometimes <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.1998.11425085" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">associated more closely with female owners</a> – and therefore, considered a feminine pet – posing with cats may have primed the women taking our survey to default to this outdated trope, despite <a href="https://www.bustle.com/articles/79524-10-reasons-to-date-a-man-who-owns-a-cat-because-it-actually-makes-him-10" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">some popular media efforts</a> to elevate the status of male cat owners.</p>
<p>Alternatively, the perception of male cat owners as less extroverted and more neurotic, agreeable and open may have nudged our respondents to put these men in the "friend zone." In other words, perhaps seeing a man pose with the cat suggests he might be a better confidant than date.</p><p>It's important to note that whether the women identified themselves as "cat people," "dog people," "both" or "neither" affected their perceptions. Women who self-identified as "cat people" were more inclined to view the men pictured with cats as more dateable or say they had no preference.</p><p>Of course, like any research, our work has its limitations. Our sample is a very specific population – heterosexual, primarily white women, aged 18 to 24 years and living in the United States. We don't know how these results would change if we surveyed, say, bisexual or gender-fluid women, men interested in men or individuals from different cultural backgrounds.</p><p>And that's the best part. This is a new, growing area of research, and it's only one of a handful of potential studies on the relationship between pet ownership and first impressions on dating apps. This means we have our work cut out for us.</p><p>But in the meantime, if heterosexual men are looking to get a match, it's probably a good idea if they save showing off their photos with their favorite felines for the first or second date.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/144999/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation"></p><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/lori-kogan-1026738" target="_blank">Lori Kogan</a>, Professor of Clinical Sciences, <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/colorado-state-university-1267" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Colorado State University</a></em> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/shelly-volsche-1063004" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Shelly Volsche</a>, Lecturer, <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/boise-state-university-1983" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Boise State University</a></em></p><p>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com/" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-studied-what-happens-when-guys-add-their-cats-to-their-dating-app-profiles-144999" target="_blank">original article</a>.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Coronavirus
Quarantine rule breakers in 17th-century Italy partied all night – and some clergy condemned the feasting
17th-century outbreaks of plague in Italy reveal both tensions between religious and public health authorities.
Scroll down to load more…
