5 ms·

At some point we have to recognize that service workers must be paid a living wage, or be automated. We cannot, morally or economically, have an entire class of

At some point we have to recognize that service workers must be paid a living wage, or be automated. We cannot, morally or economically, have an entire class of worker that we utterly depend on that lives permanently below the poverty line and we just step on them because "they didn't work hard in school" or whichever narrative you prefer to go with for why people who don't have a degree do work that is essential to our civilization. The reality is that the fair market isn't perfect, and even jobs that are low on the totem pole but essential must be compensated in such a way where people don't need to work 60 hour weeks to barely afford a shithole home and car.

manigandham 9y ago
> or be automated That's an extreme opposite from living wage.
- FussyZeus 9y ago
  Well if you follow the popular theories, this means better jobs are created elsewhere and improve life etc. etc. Historically this is true, this time is a lot different, in general it's just a different discussion I didn't feel like broaching in this thread.
- sokoloff 9y ago
  If that solution ends up being cheaper, it's likely to be the solution that gets implemented. (That might be OK, provided the now displaced workers choose to move someplace with a lower cost of living where they are able to make ends meet being paid an amount commensurate with the value they create.)
purple-again 9y ago
You need to seriously think through every level of what you are suggesting. You want us to revamp the way we handle the complex interactions of individual autonomous groups from one in which your worth is tied to the value you contribute to society (The rapper 50 cent has a lot more money than a brain surgeon because like it or not the value he created for society was much greater than that one surgeons contribution) to one in which you are rewarded simply for existing. Do you truly believe that is a sustainable system without fully automated existence from resource extraction all the way to finished goods ( which we are not even remotely close to achieving)?
- jahaja 9y ago
  It's called a social welfare system.
- FussyZeus 9y ago
  Firstly, 50-Cent versus Brain Surgeons is actually a very simple one: there are many brain surgeons (not a ton, but many) and only one 50-Cent. Also one is a performer, which is something inherently unique. Despite the KPop industry's assertions, you cannot "train" a performer. Brain Surgeon on the other hand is a job you train for; it's a lot of training, at great expense, but it is still training and there are many: 33,000 worldwide according to Google. So that's just simple scarcity. Secondly, there is a massive flaw here that I can't quite put into words, so I'll attempt to show my reasoning for what I'm getting at: * Workers are paid for (in a perfect world) by the profits of a business that generates revenue providing a service. Therefore, whatever that service generates in revenue is passed to employees in whatever structure. By extension of the above, the rarer a service is by whatever measure be it difficulty, hazard, required equipment, regulation, training, etc. the more expensive that service is and therefore the higher paying that job should be. This is why neurosurgeons make more than McDonalds cooks. * Cafeteria chefs, short order cooks, waitstaff, baristas, etc. are all examples of jobs that are almost universally terrible, universally poorly paid, and absolutely essential to many people's daily lives. They may not generate very much value individually, but if tomorrow they all decided to fuck off and not come to work, society as a whole would notice and be definitely worse off for it. In addition, to large groups of the population such jobs are their only source of income. We therefore have a situation where many entire sectors of the economy are composed of jobs that do not pay their workers enough to live, yet we absolutely need them. This doesn't make sense and is not sustainable. What I'm saying is: you cannot have a situation where someone's still essential job does not pay them enough to live. Eventually, something has to give: we have to accept that just because someone lives a life of simple labor that they are not ours to then condemn to a life of check-to-check stress, lack of healthcare, and poor living conditions, especially when the majority of those in that life did not choose it, because who the fuck would choose that, but were forced into it by circumstance, fortune, poor decisions early in life, or some combination of the three. Now, how we solve this problem I'm not remotely qualified to say. Basic Income is one idea, raising minimum wage is another, both of which will have far reaching implications that I can't even get into right now. What I'm saying is: the current scenario is not morally right, and not economically sustainable. We need something different.
tyingq 9y ago
They are one of many lower wage workers you might see at a place like Facebook that aren't Facebook employees. They probably contract out for janitorial services, landscaping, security guards, etc. All at probably similar wages.
- FussyZeus 9y ago
  I'm not sure what your point is? I was saying this was a perfect example, it's far from the only one.
  - tyingq 9y ago
    Sometimes replies aren't argumentative, but rather, additive. Thought it worth pointing out that a typical corporate campus has many types of workers that don't work directly for the company.

manigandham 9y ago

> or be automated That's an extreme opposite from living wage.

FussyZeus 9y ago
Well if you follow the popular theories, this means better jobs are created elsewhere and improve life etc. etc. Historically this is true, this time is a lot different, in general it's just a different discussion I didn't feel like broaching in this thread.
sokoloff 9y ago
If that solution ends up being cheaper, it's likely to be the solution that gets implemented. (That might be OK, provided the now displaced workers choose to move someplace with a lower cost of living where they are able to make ends meet being paid an amount commensurate with the value they create.)

purple-again 9y ago

You need to seriously think through every level of what you are suggesting. You want us to revamp the way we handle the complex interactions of individual autonomous groups from one in which your worth is tied to the value you contribute to society (The rapper 50 cent has a lot more money than a brain surgeon because like it or not the value he created for society was much greater than that one surgeons contribution) to one in which you are rewarded simply for existing. Do you truly believe that is a sustainable system without fully automated existence from resource extraction all the way to finished goods ( which we are not even remotely close to achieving)?

jahaja 9y ago
It's called a social welfare system.
FussyZeus 9y ago
Firstly, 50-Cent versus Brain Surgeons is actually a very simple one: there are many brain surgeons (not a ton, but many) and only one 50-Cent. Also one is a performer, which is something inherently unique. Despite the KPop industry's assertions, you cannot "train" a performer. Brain Surgeon on the other hand is a job you train for; it's a lot of training, at great expense, but it is still training and there are many: 33,000 worldwide according to Google. So that's just simple scarcity. Secondly, there is a massive flaw here that I can't quite put into words, so I'll attempt to show my reasoning for what I'm getting at: * Workers are paid for (in a perfect world) by the profits of a business that generates revenue providing a service. Therefore, whatever that service generates in revenue is passed to employees in whatever structure. By extension of the above, the rarer a service is by whatever measure be it difficulty, hazard, required equipment, regulation, training, etc. the more expensive that service is and therefore the higher paying that job should be. This is why neurosurgeons make more than McDonalds cooks. * Cafeteria chefs, short order cooks, waitstaff, baristas, etc. are all examples of jobs that are almost universally terrible, universally poorly paid, and absolutely essential to many people's daily lives. They may not generate very much value individually, but if tomorrow they all decided to fuck off and not come to work, society as a whole would notice and be definitely worse off for it. In addition, to large groups of the population such jobs are their only source of income. We therefore have a situation where many entire sectors of the economy are composed of jobs that do not pay their workers enough to live, yet we absolutely need them. This doesn't make sense and is not sustainable. What I'm saying is: you cannot have a situation where someone's still essential job does not pay them enough to live. Eventually, something has to give: we have to accept that just because someone lives a life of simple labor that they are not ours to then condemn to a life of check-to-check stress, lack of healthcare, and poor living conditions, especially when the majority of those in that life did not choose it, because who the fuck would choose that, but were forced into it by circumstance, fortune, poor decisions early in life, or some combination of the three. Now, how we solve this problem I'm not remotely qualified to say. Basic Income is one idea, raising minimum wage is another, both of which will have far reaching implications that I can't even get into right now. What I'm saying is: the current scenario is not morally right, and not economically sustainable. We need something different.

tyingq 9y ago

They are one of many lower wage workers you might see at a place like Facebook that aren't Facebook employees. They probably contract out for janitorial services, landscaping, security guards, etc. All at probably similar wages.

FussyZeus 9y ago
I'm not sure what your point is? I was saying this was a perfect example, it's far from the only one.
- tyingq 9y ago
  Sometimes replies aren't argumentative, but rather, additive. Thought it worth pointing out that a typical corporate campus has many types of workers that don't work directly for the company.