7 ms·

A business model that requires paying wages that you can't live on, it seems reasonable to call that business model a net loss for society.

by rocqua 10y ago

Chris2048 10y ago
So basically, its better that these workers be unemployed? Or you assume there will be an unlimited supply of alternate jobs available?
- TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
  Wrong premise. It's better to design your economy in a way that doesn't privilege shareholder and investor "risk" over employee and citizen risk. Why should be corporations be given a free hand to act in ways that increase costs, increase personal risk, and lower opportunity for all but a tiny subset of the population?
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    What do you mean "wrong premise"? It might be better to design your mathematics so that 1 + 1 = 3, but the argument here is if that is possible. At the level of an economy, the burden is on you to show that minimum wage results in lower risk/higher opportunity for employees.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  I got a bunch of down-votes for questioning unworkable economics? Just "imagining" there is a better way isn't a plan. Whatever. If ppl in this thread wants to argue magical economics and down-vote anyone that disagrees, go ahead.
- eveningcoffee 10y ago
  Yes, it is better these people are unemployed and receive unemployment benefits until they manage to find a real job. Because they are making the situation worse for everyone.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    so your idea is necessarily tied to the existence of unemployment benefit.
    - rapind 10y ago
      When there exists a social net, isn't it obvious that the existence of poor costs money? Plus, that money disproportionately comes from the lower and middle class in the form of tax. So in reality all you're doing with an underpaid gig economy is allowing corps to indirectly make money off of taxpayers instead of just the customers / companies involved in the service. TLDR; You're paying a tax for someone else to get their food delivered.
      - Chris2048 10y ago
        That's not true; if no one offered "underpaid" work we'd pay more tax, so that interpretation doesn't work. What you don't understand is that whike "existence of poor costs money", underpaid jobs do not made people poor - you'd have to assume that if companies where held to a minimum wage, that they just pay that (and/or raise prices), rather than employ less.
        rapind 10y ago
        If companies are held to a minimum wage, then they'll pay it. Sure, maybe it becomes more cost effective to invest in technology that requires them to pay less people... but I would argue they are doing that already (especially in the context of Uber), regardless of whether it's gig or minimum wage. Rich people don't buy more stuff in proportion to what they make. So the more money that moves from the lower and middle class, the less business opportunity you have. I'm not going to use 10 times more uber eats than someone who makes 10 times less than me. It's not a hard problem to solve in theory. Just figure out how to move money the opposite direction and business will boom! It doesn't even have to be a socialist structure. Maybe we just tax companies for their external negative effects?
      - prostoalex 10y ago
refurb 10y ago
Really? There isn't anyone out there looking for part-time work to supplement their existing salary? Not everyone is looking for a full-time job.
- ddingus 10y ago
  When the majority of new jobs do not pay living wages, this argument breaks down. Sure, people want gig, part time work. They aren't the issue. Over 40 percent of workers make minimum or below on gig wages. The vast majority of new jobs pay these wages and they aren't enough. People work at a net loss, the impact being we, who can make it, subsidize the business models by social spending, and or people live terribly. We aren't bankrolling good jobs lost. A majority of Americans struggle economically today, and those numbers are climbing. The usual argument is it becoming cheaper to live. The reality does not align to that expectation. We need to fix this. Either is fine. It really does become cheaper to live, or very large numbers of people need more from their labor, or we accept a much lower standard of living and tepid demand that goes along with all that. Which is it, and how can we improve?
  - Fnoord 10y ago
    > Which is it, and how can we improve? Minimum wage exists for a reason. Minimum wage is per hour. What we need is to have this type of employment to be illegal, and we need to have this actively enforced. I find it mind boggling it still exists, and I suspect it is because of illegal immigrants falling for it. Incidentally, that's also why the reporter was so easily hired: there's a huge demand for low paid workers, but actually this is illegal competition with minimum wage workers. If that cannot be worked with without increasing the cost of delivery the solution is very simple: increase the price of the food in combination with delivery. Let the customers pay a fair price for their food plus delivery instead. Someone should also look into Amazon Mechanical Turk. It has the very same issue we discuss, but it has a benefit (for Amazon): its not specific to the physical world (like delivery) and is world-wide, and therefore can also exploit world-wide.
    - ddingus 10y ago

A business model that requires paying wages that you can't live on, it seems reasonable to call that business model a net loss for society.

by rocqua 10y ago

A business model that requires paying wages that you can't live on, it seems reasonable to call that business model a net loss for society.

Chris2048 10y ago

So basically, its better that these workers be unemployed? Or you assume there will be an unlimited supply of alternate jobs available?

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
Wrong premise. It's better to design your economy in a way that doesn't privilege shareholder and investor "risk" over employee and citizen risk. Why should be corporations be given a free hand to act in ways that increase costs, increase personal risk, and lower opportunity for all but a tiny subset of the population?
- Chris2048 10y ago
  What do you mean "wrong premise"? It might be better to design your mathematics so that 1 + 1 = 3, but the argument here is if that is possible. At the level of an economy, the burden is on you to show that minimum wage results in lower risk/higher opportunity for employees.
Chris2048 10y ago
I got a bunch of down-votes for questioning unworkable economics? Just "imagining" there is a better way isn't a plan. Whatever. If ppl in this thread wants to argue magical economics and down-vote anyone that disagrees, go ahead.
eveningcoffee 10y ago
Yes, it is better these people are unemployed and receive unemployment benefits until they manage to find a real job. Because they are making the situation worse for everyone.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  so your idea is necessarily tied to the existence of unemployment benefit.
  - rapind 10y ago
    When there exists a social net, isn't it obvious that the existence of poor costs money? Plus, that money disproportionately comes from the lower and middle class in the form of tax. So in reality all you're doing with an underpaid gig economy is allowing corps to indirectly make money off of taxpayers instead of just the customers / companies involved in the service. TLDR; You're paying a tax for someone else to get their food delivered.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      That's not true; if no one offered "underpaid" work we'd pay more tax, so that interpretation doesn't work. What you don't understand is that whike "existence of poor costs money", underpaid jobs do not made people poor - you'd have to assume that if companies where held to a minimum wage, that they just pay that (and/or raise prices), rather than employ less.
      - rapind 10y ago
        If companies are held to a minimum wage, then they'll pay it. Sure, maybe it becomes more cost effective to invest in technology that requires them to pay less people... but I would argue they are doing that already (especially in the context of Uber), regardless of whether it's gig or minimum wage. Rich people don't buy more stuff in proportion to what they make. So the more money that moves from the lower and middle class, the less business opportunity you have. I'm not going to use 10 times more uber eats than someone who makes 10 times less than me. It's not a hard problem to solve in theory. Just figure out how to move money the opposite direction and business will boom! It doesn't even have to be a socialist structure. Maybe we just tax companies for their external negative effects?
    - prostoalex 10y ago

refurb 10y ago

Really? There isn't anyone out there looking for part-time work to supplement their existing salary? Not everyone is looking for a full-time job.

ddingus 10y ago
When the majority of new jobs do not pay living wages, this argument breaks down. Sure, people want gig, part time work. They aren't the issue. Over 40 percent of workers make minimum or below on gig wages. The vast majority of new jobs pay these wages and they aren't enough. People work at a net loss, the impact being we, who can make it, subsidize the business models by social spending, and or people live terribly. We aren't bankrolling good jobs lost. A majority of Americans struggle economically today, and those numbers are climbing. The usual argument is it becoming cheaper to live. The reality does not align to that expectation. We need to fix this. Either is fine. It really does become cheaper to live, or very large numbers of people need more from their labor, or we accept a much lower standard of living and tepid demand that goes along with all that. Which is it, and how can we improve?
- Fnoord 10y ago
  > Which is it, and how can we improve? Minimum wage exists for a reason. Minimum wage is per hour. What we need is to have this type of employment to be illegal, and we need to have this actively enforced. I find it mind boggling it still exists, and I suspect it is because of illegal immigrants falling for it. Incidentally, that's also why the reporter was so easily hired: there's a huge demand for low paid workers, but actually this is illegal competition with minimum wage workers. If that cannot be worked with without increasing the cost of delivery the solution is very simple: increase the price of the food in combination with delivery. Let the customers pay a fair price for their food plus delivery instead. Someone should also look into Amazon Mechanical Turk. It has the very same issue we discuss, but it has a benefit (for Amazon): its not specific to the physical world (like delivery) and is world-wide, and therefore can also exploit world-wide.
  - ddingus 10y ago