3 ms·

The counter argument would be that we learned many decades ago the societal consequences of employment that does not cover basic needs. We can't pretend a human

by 1_2__3 10y ago

The counter argument would be that we learned many decades ago the societal consequences of employment that does not cover basic needs. We can't pretend a human can survive in many parts of America on that kind of wage without government assistance. So we either pay it for the Uber rides, or we pay it in social welfare, or we pay it in the consequences of insufficient social welfare. You're just complaining that it's Uber riders who would have to pay for the externalities caused by Uber's business practices.

malandrew 10y ago
So the alternative is having no employment options, which naturally cover none of a person's basic needs. Performing a job that meets some basic needs is strictly better than no basic needs being met because there is no job. We have welfare and other options to aid with unmet needs. Without these options, individuals who need welfare end up being a 100% burden on the system instead of a partial burden. Furthermore, those that remain unemployed for an extended period of time are increasingly likely to remain unemployed indefinitely. Having a job, even if it doesn't meet all needs, can at least serve as a more likely stepping stone to one that does. With that said, these jobs are meeting basic needs. They may not provide enough income to support a family, but they certainly do provide enough income to support an individual. And before anyone claims otherwise, realize that the economy has always had jobs that have only ever provided enough income to support individuals, not families. Such low-paying entry-level jobs are not a new phenomenon. We've always had them. We just have a lot more of them now. The problem isn't the existence of these jobs and the companies that offer them, it's the lack of other jobs that pay better. There are hundreds of thousands of people doing this kind of work, and many have been doing this kind of work for several years. That's a clear sign that these jobs are meeting needs. There is a big difference between "Are you happy working for company X?" and "Would you be better off if company X did not exist?". Even people with jobs considered good jobs by most may be unhappy working that job. Even if they don't like the job, it doesn't mean that the arrangement isn't mutually beneficial. These companies are not at fault for the current job market. Most people here are simply using them as a convenient scapegoat for other other problems.

by 1_2__3 10y ago

malandrew 10y ago

So the alternative is having no employment options, which naturally cover none of a person's basic needs. Performing a job that meets some basic needs is strictly better than no basic needs being met because there is no job. We have welfare and other options to aid with unmet needs. Without these options, individuals who need welfare end up being a 100% burden on the system instead of a partial burden. Furthermore, those that remain unemployed for an extended period of time are increasingly likely to remain unemployed indefinitely. Having a job, even if it doesn't meet all needs, can at least serve as a more likely stepping stone to one that does. With that said, these jobs are meeting basic needs. They may not provide enough income to support a family, but they certainly do provide enough income to support an individual. And before anyone claims otherwise, realize that the economy has always had jobs that have only ever provided enough income to support individuals, not families. Such low-paying entry-level jobs are not a new phenomenon. We've always had them. We just have a lot more of them now. The problem isn't the existence of these jobs and the companies that offer them, it's the lack of other jobs that pay better. There are hundreds of thousands of people doing this kind of work, and many have been doing this kind of work for several years. That's a clear sign that these jobs are meeting needs. There is a big difference between "Are you happy working for company X?" and "Would you be better off if company X did not exist?". Even people with jobs considered good jobs by most may be unhappy working that job. Even if they don't like the job, it doesn't mean that the arrangement isn't mutually beneficial. These companies are not at fault for the current job market. Most people here are simply using them as a convenient scapegoat for other other problems.