no one cares, all we care about is a game that works like it is advertised, period end
1 Like
Hey, that is blatantly false. You probably meant “all I care about” instead.
2 Likes
First, do not deign to tell me how to think. You are, frankly, on too low a pay grade for such superfluities.
Second, Marx’s broader ideology of oppressors and oppressed is amongst the mkst delussional and damaging idiocies that the human species has ever produced.
1 Like
I agree with him. I find the lefty grandstanding boring and small, and those same people often then gripe about spending more on the games.
Which is fine (in a sense), he was still wrong about “no one cares”.
Seems more likely it is the people who ‘do not care’, who also complain about having to spend more 
Personally I would gladly take a delayed D4 in exchange for them not having crunch as much. Heck, should probably be delayed regardless.
Also quite fine with game prices going up. Certainly rather pay more for a game than having all that battle pass MTX nonsense too 
3 Likes
They aren’t. Not long ago nurses in Finland wanted more money for their work. They threatened to go on strike and leave people to die in hospitals. They eventually got what they wanted but now they want even more. Currently our truck drivers are threatening to go on strike which will completely stop exports. Can’t remember what they want but they’ll eventually get what they want.
Unions are a double-edged sword and can be just as corrupt as any greedy corporation. They’re theoretically good as a check and balance, but many times just don’t work out that way and result in a worsening product.
In this particular instance, I foresee the product getting a lot worse. Generally because the people who make up Blizzards staff seem to be politically obsessed and will only take the game in a more atrocious manner related to that. And the company will have less influence over it.
2 Likes
They typically can go either way but as far as I’m concerned the video game industry has proven that it can’t be trusted to treat employees well.
So now we try it the union way.
The company already seems to want to head in that direction anyway.
It’s a fairly effective tactic for getting people talking about your product, and while some people will be very angry about it we all know how well gaming boycotts work so the backlash means very little to them.
It’s generally not a coincidence that suddenly every company wants to be “woke” now. They’ll all drop it the moment Twitter finds something else to get up in arms about.
Either way, a union will affect it very little.
What if there are no jobs that required these people?
We are in the time of Industrial revolution 4.0, which is the industrialisation where machine/AI will take over human.
MORE importantly, it is the first Indiustrial revolution (following ones will be worse) where the amount of work replaced, will NOT be covered by job created!!!
2 Likes
Hence new skills.
Yeah, definitely. I expect massive unemployment in the not too distant future. But we are not there yet. Probably wont be for another 10+ years.
Here and now, people who lose their jobs to automation still have good chances to get new jobs. Unemployment is exceptionally low in many countries.
Shouldn’t exactly let people go unemployed for the rest of their working lives, just because they will lose their new jobs to automation later on too.
Yep, completely agree with that expectation.
I don’t really see what the alternative should be? Not to automate, in some misguided attempt to preserve jobs? Good luck with that.
In the short term the most obvious and easy solution seems to be to lower work hours, spreading out the remaining jobs on more people. In the longer term, eh, I guess society will have to learn to accept that lots of people wont have jobs, and how to handle such a world. Hopefully we manage to learn fast for once.
There I agree. Id rather the game devs stab me in the front rather tham the back.
Automation removes the need of human labor in certain areas and the people will need to find jobs elsewhere, when such are created. The easier the job creation, the lesser the problem will be. Job creation is inhibited by heavy regulation, as well as labor, environmental, and discrimination laws. Hence, USA lost jobs since the 70s while China and others gained.
1 Like
Oh boy. Here we go again.
What you just said? It’s not true. Not even a little.
Here’s some articles that might, err, help you see a better, more accurate point of view:
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2017/08/07/the-regulation-myth/
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/3/2/14772518/environmental-regulations-jobs
Err, not quite.
Waving away the complexities of the US job market in a single sentence is to put it mildly myopic af. But when it comes to factory and manufacturing jobs, the U.S. is on a major upswing:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/26/business/factory-jobs-workers-rebound.html
I never cease to marvel at your ability to talk about complex topics in the most Fox-News bullet points you can muster.
3 Likes
Opinions of leftists, especially from three leftist, and quite compromised publications, cannot overcome facts. Just look at the graph of when the wages began stagnating in the US and the onset is clear: “progress” from the 70s on.
2 Likes
What I like most about that graph is watching right and left wing in the US use it as “evidence” for whatever thing they didn’t like in the 70s being the root cause of all their problems today.
Indeed. And that will continue to work to some degree. Question is, which force will be strongest; job losses from automation, or new types of jobs being created. For the near and midterm, likely the latter. For the long-term I very much expect the former will dominate.
Eh not really, those also create jobs. Maybe except for the last one which is just a laughable addition to mention. If not too surprising. Always remember not to say the quiet part out loud.
Ah yes, China, the country without regulations. Oh wait.
1 Like
Let me explain why there three are really detrimental. But first, please give me the benefit of the doubt, at least for the time you take to read my post. Approach it with an open mind and see if I make sense.
- Imagine a group of men, each of whom can be either employed or unemployed.
- Unemployed can become employed and vice versa, depending on the job creation and job destruction. Like in a chemical reaction, each process has a rate and with its rate constant, which would depend on the business climate.
- Job creation depends on A) the ease to hire people; B) the cost to maintain people hired, and the C) the ease/difficulty to fire people.
A) is quite obvious.
B) the more expensive to maintain a worker is, the more cautious the employer will be; thus making labor costs (direct and indirect) to go up results in fewer people being hired.
C) it may be counterintuitive, but when it is difficult to fire people, job creation goes down because employers will be willing to hire only as a last resort and instead spread the work over the current employees. People complain about creeping duties? Here lies one of the reasons.
Labor laws dramatically worsen B and C, despite professed “good intentions” by the lawmakers. For example, when a job comes with health benefits, it makes sense for the employer to squeeze 80 hours from one person than hire two for 40. We may both agree that it will be nice for all to have access to top healthcare, but choosing the employers to be the responsible party has its drawbacks.
Similarly, penalties against firing people results in less hiring rather than keeping an optimized headcount (max number of useful people hired).
Also, labor laws are really bad when they eliminate low tier jobs that would be useful for people who’d want to work at a slow pace or just from time to time.
Discrimination laws are much worse disaster because they mutated very quickly into a racket. “Guilty until proven innocent” became the new motto (see Disparate Impact legal standard) and nobody would want to face an activist judge and a riled up jury.
Have you wandered why “from the mail room to the boardroom” practice become extinct? Each promotion became a lawsuit invitation for those who felt being “passed over.”
Defending just one suit would be millions; a class action: tens of millions in legal fees. On top of that you may end up paying a judgement or a settlement. Yet further on top of that you may face undue harassment from governmental agencies who have infinite time and a blank check come election time. Each of these, makes closing shop and moving manufacturing to China more and more appealing. Large former industrial centers are now poverty stricken and the protected classes - unemployed, but reliable voters.
Jut to point out: phasing out an industry due to progress does not ruin an area because in good business climate newly emerging employers would absorb the larger chunk of the labor force over time.
Last but not least, environmental laws have mutated to the point of activity freeze. The current form of these laws renders illegal or impossible a large number of activities that would otherwise be beneficial and would keep people gainfully employed. A simple example is the deep blue areas of the US with housing crisis on their hands.
Finally, just for the record, regulations ensure the orderly function of business. Excessive regulation stifles the same and makes it inoperable. Jobs that emerge to simply handle compliance are not “real jobs” in the sense that they do not increase the well being of society. For example, if the government orders all cars to be painted yellow tomorrow, this will create lots of painting jobs but no wealth will be created.
Peace!
And that’s why you have legal framework concerning work hours.
Yes, the government should be the one. For everyone. As it is in most of the developed world.
2 Likes
People in this thread: Debating employment based on regulation
My News Feeds: Google lays off 12,000 people, hedge fund tells them to triple that number for literally no reason except “it’d make us more money”.
We don’t have a functioning “framework.” There is the concept “exempt employee” that covers many professions. Right those that have 80+ hour weeks.
Governments struggle with healthcare because a bureaucrat does not know what each individual needs. And the “developed world” sometimes comes to the US for serious treatment.