Digital Gems

Digital Gems

2442 bookmarks
Newest
Eurozone Inflation Above Target Sooner Than The ECB Expected
Eurozone Inflation Above Target Sooner Than The ECB Expected
The annual rate of inflation hit the European Central Bank’s target for the first time since late 2018, as energy prices surged in response to a strengthening recovery in the global economy.
Eurozone Inflation Above Target Sooner Than The ECB Expected
Castro Surveillance Camera Plan Raises Privacy Concerns
Castro Surveillance Camera Plan Raises Privacy Concerns
Crime concerns have sparked a new idea to add security cameras in San Francisco’s Castro District, but some community groups say cameras aren’t the answer and raise concerns about privacy.
Castro Surveillance Camera Plan Raises Privacy Concerns
Can Wearable Devices Save Your Relationship?
Can Wearable Devices Save Your Relationship?
In recent years, health-tracking wearables have become ubiquitous. What if we could use these devices to track the health of our romantic relationships and prevent conflicts?
Can Wearable Devices Save Your Relationship?
Identifying the policy levers generating wage suppression and wage inequality | Economic Policy Institute
Identifying the policy levers generating wage suppression and wage inequality | Economic Policy Institute
Larry Mishel and Josh Bivens, Economic Policy Institute There is now widespread acceptance across the political spectrum that the typical worker’s wages have grown very slowly or been stagnant for several decades but a consensus narrative explaining wage stagnation has not developed yet. [togglable text="expand abstract"] The frequently invoked conventional explanations attributing wage problems primarily to automation and, somewhat, to globalization, cannot actually explain key wage developments over the last several decades. Moreover, portraying wage stagnation and growing wage inequality as the unfortunate byproduct of inevitable, positive forces such as automation that one neither can nor would want to alter is deeply misleading and, sometimes intentionally, is meant to absolve those with the most power—corporations and the most wealthy people—from their responsibility for the outcomes of their actions and to ignore the impact of racism and sexism. Any explanation of wage stagnation must grapple with three key features of wage trends over the last four decades. First, wages and benefits for the typical worker have risen very slowly—frequently characterized as stagnant—and much more slowly than the productivity of the average worker. Second, the gap between the typical worker’s compensation and average productivity primarily results from two types of inequalities, primarily a growing inequality of wages and benefits but also a shift of income from labor to capital. Finally, while racial wage disparities grew, and gender wage disparities did shrink, the failure to eliminate these disparities and continue the progress achieved in the 1960s and 1970s has led for there to be higher inequality today. This paper offers a narrative and supporting evidence on the mechanisms that suppressed wage growth over the last four decades since the late 1970s. We label this wage suppression rather than wage stagnation because it was an actively sought outcome—engineered by the political power and organizational strategies of corporate management and its political and judicial allies to suppress labor costs and wages and maintain gender and racial hierarchies—and was not the passive, unavoidable outcome of a "bad economy" or the byproduct of positive forces such as automation. The key forces driving wage suppression have been changes in management practices/strategies and shifts in public policy, including both policy actions and omissions, that systematically undercut individual workers’ options and ability to obtain higher pay, job security, and high-quality jobs, along with a lack of action to counteract the racism and sexism that undercut the prospects of particular groups of workers. These dynamics are primarily located in the labor market and the strengthening of employers’ power relative to their white-collar and blue-collar workers. It is "as if" a team of corporate executives, lobbyists, and lawyers designed corporate strategies, reset government policies toward labor standards (e.g., minimum wage) and unions, shaped judicial opinions and the legal environment and weakened enforcement of existing labor standards and laws with the goal of limiting workers’ options in the labor market, limiting wage growth, and undercutting workers’ individual and collective bargaining power relative to their employers. These decisions were most adverse for workers with low and moderate wages, especially for African Americans so situated, thereby generating wage inequality whereby high earners and, especially those in the top 1.0% and 0.1%, fared far better than those in the bottom 90%. It was this growth in wage inequality, including the failure to close gender and racial disparities, and a shift of income from workers to owners of capital that explains the failure of wages for the vast majority to improve adequately. This paper elaborates and empirically assesses the specific factors and mechanisms that developed since the late 1970s to undercut workers’ individual and collective bargaining power. We offer assessments of the impact of particular mechanisms on wage growth and wage inequality to demonstrate that their aggregate and cumulative impact can readily explain wage suppression and wage inequality. In particular, we examine the wage impacts of factors such as: excessive unemployment, resulting from faulty monetary (and budget) policies; eroded collective bargaining, resulting from corporate practices and adverse judicial and policy choices; weaker labor standards, resulting from a declining minimum wage, eroded overtime protections, and weaker enforcement of standards leading to greater "wage theft"; globalization, resulting from policy choices that undercut wages and job security of non-college-educated workers; gender and race/ethnic discrimination; shifts in corporate structures such as fissuring (or domestic outsourcing), industry deregulation, privatization, dominant buyers affecting entire supply chains, and increases in concentration of employers. [/togglable]
Identifying the policy levers generating wage suppression and wage inequality | Economic Policy Institute
The age of killer robots may have already begun
The age of killer robots may have already begun
A drone that can select and engage targets on its own attacked soldiers during a civil conflict in Libya.Why it matters: If confirmed, it would likely represent the first-known case of a machine-learning-based autonomous weapon being used to kill, potentially heralding a dangerous new era in warfare.Get market news worthy of your time with Axios Markets. Subscribe for free.Driving the news: According to a recent report by the UN Panel of Experts on Libya, a Turkish-made STM Kargu-2 drone may have "hunted down and ... engaged" retreating soldiers fighting with Libyan Gen. Khalifa Haftar last year.It's not clear whether any soldiers were killed in the attack, although the UN experts — which call the drone a "lethal autonomous weapons system" — imply they likely were.Such an event, writes Zachary Kallenborn — a research affiliate with the Unconventional Weapons and Technology Division of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism — would represent "a new chapter in autonomous weapons, one in which they are used to fight and kill human beings based on artificial intelligence."How it works: The Kargu is a loitering drone that uses computer vision to select and engage targets without a connection between the drone and its operator, giving it "a true 'fire, forget and find' capability," the UN report notes.Between the lines: Recent conflicts — like those between Armenia and Azerbaijan and Israel and Hamas in Gaza — have featured an extensive use of drones of all sorts. The deployment of truly autonomous drones could represent a military revolution on par with the introduction of guns or aircraft — and unlike nuclear weapons, they're likely to be easily obtainable by nearly any military force.What they're saying: "If new technology makes deterrence impossible, it might condemn us to a future where everyone is always on the offense," the economist Noah Smith writes in a frightening post on the future of war. The bottom line: Humanitarian organizations and many AI experts have called for a global ban on lethal autonomous weapons, but a number of countries — including the U.S. — have stood in the way.More from Axios: Sign up to get the latest market trends with Axios Markets. Subscribe for free
The age of killer robots may have already begun
AI Ethics Teams Bulk Up in Size, Influence at Tech Firms
AI Ethics Teams Bulk Up in Size, Influence at Tech Firms
Artificial intelligence ethics teams are playing a greater role at tech companies and helping them deal with bias and fairness issues that have cropped up at companies such as Twitter.
AI Ethics Teams Bulk Up in Size, Influence at Tech Firms