By that reasoning if we take Marx classes of workers and capitals it would be stereotyping to say that workers are willing to do things because you pay them money. That doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense to me.
Assuming that poor people are more willing to take lowly paid jobs might be class based as well, but it’s important information to reason about.
I said nothing about a race about about a nationality. Indian Americans fall under minimum wage laws in the US in a way that people of Indian nationality living in India don’t.
Also, it’s not central to your point so it seems easy to just remove.
It’s not central but it helps people have models with gears to be able to visualize supply chains.
There are many people in the US who are poor people but who are still subject to US labor law that requires paying a minimum wage. For the point it’s quite useful to us a term that doesn’t include them.
There are reasons why India is a good country for outsourcing these tasks.
It’s quite similar to speaking about shipping manufacturing jobs to China. It’s insane to have political correctness pushing onto LessWrong in a way where you can’t speak about which countries are good for having certain jobs in those countries.
If we learned anything in Germany it’s that seeing everything in terms of race is a bad idea. The fact that you and Zachary can’t see a talk about countries without pattern matching into race seems illustrative of how screwed up the discourse. Yielding to that on LessWrong where clear thinking is a high value seems very costly.
[Deleted]
Why is is stereotyping to say that there are poor Indians? There are Indians who are rich and those who are poor.
In India you can hire poor Indians who speak in a big city with good internet connectivity and pay them very little.
[Deleted]
By that reasoning if we take Marx classes of workers and capitals it would be stereotyping to say that workers are willing to do things because you pay them money. That doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense to me.
Assuming that poor people are more willing to take lowly paid jobs might be class based as well, but it’s important information to reason about.
I said nothing about a race about about a nationality. Indian Americans fall under minimum wage laws in the US in a way that people of Indian nationality living in India don’t.
It’s not central but it helps people have models with gears to be able to visualize supply chains.
I’d say that it wasn’t stereotyping, but saying “poor Indian” instead of “poor person” makes it seem unnecessarily racialized.
There are many people in the US who are poor people but who are still subject to US labor law that requires paying a minimum wage. For the point it’s quite useful to us a term that doesn’t include them.
There are reasons why India is a good country for outsourcing these tasks.
It’s quite similar to speaking about shipping manufacturing jobs to China. It’s insane to have political correctness pushing onto LessWrong in a way where you can’t speak about which countries are good for having certain jobs in those countries.
If we learned anything in Germany it’s that seeing everything in terms of race is a bad idea. The fact that you and Zachary can’t see a talk about countries without pattern matching into race seems illustrative of how screwed up the discourse. Yielding to that on LessWrong where clear thinking is a high value seems very costly.
[Deleted]