6 ms·

It sounds like the real reason for inequality is that the pay for "janitorial work" has simply decreased. The article makes a point to say that the pay is the s

It sounds like the real reason for inequality is that the pay for "janitorial work" has simply decreased. The article makes a point to say that the pay is the same, accounting for inflation, but it's disingenuous not to highlight total comp, which Ramos had significantly less of than Evans.

lotsofpulp 9y ago
The reason for inequality is that people are not equal. The work they do produce is not equal in value. More people can do a janitor's job, and/or do without a janitor, so the value of a janitor's work is less. More supply, elastic demand, means lower price point. Through technology, some people are able to produce much more than others, so inequality is inevitable unless there is a balancing force (aka taxation).
- thatfrenchguy 9y ago
  Mimnimum wages, mandatory health insurance / vacation, ... All the things every country in the world does except one.
  - AdrianB1 9y ago
    In Soviet Russia you get even more. Not kidding. Do you want to move there?
    - thatfrenchguy 9y ago
      I have no idea what you are talking about.
      - 21 9y ago
        Maybe he is referring to the fact that the Soviet bloc also gave you a job and a flat to live in.
        AdrianB1 9y ago
        Exactly: they give you stuff, only to have the impression you have something and someone cares. Actually, nobody does not, the citizen is just a milk cow.
  - bb611 9y ago
    Are you trying to claim the United States doesn't have those? Because it currently has 2 of those (minimum wage and a health insurance mandate) at the federal level.
    - thatfrenchguy 9y ago
      The United States have both of those implemented in exactly the wrong way: the minimum wage is livable nowhere, and there is still people without health insurance in the US today.
      - richardknop 9y ago
        Minimum wage is hardly livable anywhere in the western world so that has nothing to do with US. Show me any country in Europe where living in minimum wage means anything else than poverty in all but name.
- adwhit 9y ago
  Indeed, the value of keeping toilets sanitary is far greater than that of creating the next web app. "This work is essential to the health of the population, but because of something to do with marginal economics and supply and demand and weak labor laws and class power and reserve supply of labor, I don't have to pay a proper wage, or even treat them like human beings!"
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - jfnixon 9y ago
    I'd say most web app developers can keep the toilets sanitary, if needed, with little training.
  - lotsofpulp 9y ago
    Nature doesn't have a "proper" wage. The temporary moat of other countries being destroyed by ww2 and less efficient travel and lack of computers meant labor supply was constructed. The situation has now changed so there is more supply of labor (similar to when women came into the work force). You can't fight supply and demand, the people with lower quality of life (in developing countries) will work for less than the richer ones, so their product is cheaper, and in the marketplace people will buy cheaper products (as evident in our situation today).
  - tomjen3 9y ago
    Value can be defined as how much people are willing to pay for it. Based on that, some webapps are worth more.
    - ericd 9y ago
      I think it's useful to remember that the work of one webapp developer can positively affect the lives of millions of people. Tech yields a counterintuitive amount of leverage.
  - tuna-piano 9y ago
    Diamonds are also more expensive than water. But of course water is more valuable than diamonds. Price is not about total value provided to society but about the marginal value of one more diamond, 1 more gallon of water, 1 more janitor or 1 more programmer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_value
- lozenge 9y ago
  Your first paragraph, on supply and demand, is fairly accurate, but to say that "some people are able to produce much more than others" is oversimplifying. Consider a fast food restaurant with one cleaner, two people at the tills, three people in the kitchen, and one manager. Remove any of them and the lines will become too long, the place will become unacceptably dirty, etc. However, none of the employees is "producing" more than any other.
  - lotsofpulp 9y ago
    Perhaps I shouldn't have used individuals, but in my opinion, it's easy to see that a team of engineers automating a factory produce, via their machines, much more than thousands of the factory workers who were doing rote work day after day. The people that developed email and whatnot produced more than the people who deliver mail, etc.
- tiggybear 9y ago
  Yes, but at some point people used to say "fuck this I'm not working 40 hours a week my whole life if I can't even buy a house and afford a few luxuries." And so that would restrict supply. People don't do this anymore for various reasons, frankly it's been demonized in our society. Lots of companies (/most?) restrict supply to drive up costs (diamonds, agriculture, digital media, etc), they don't produce at maximum/flood the market. They restrict supply to maintain a healthy profit margin. And people call this good business, but what do we call workers who do the same? I think their is a good argument to be made that our middle and lower classes have just been acting as bad business men and women and have been giving as much unrestricted supply as they've been asked for. It's bankrupting them, costing them their health, costing their children opportunities for good education and access to their parents bc they are working all the time. It's costing them the American Dream, if there ever was one. I do believe it's time for people to unionize or something. Unions are a whole other argument, but we can make new ones with new rules to make them better. People have to realize their bosses view their "worth" more so as leverage than output. People can increase their output all they want (which they often have: more degrees, more work hours, etc), but without an increase in leverage they won't be paid that. Further, this doesn't neccessarily mean anyone's boss is not paying them appropriately. It's possible the market at large needs to be adjusted to pay for these costs or more than likely a little of A and a little of B.
tcbawo 9y ago
Lack of a medical safety net and sick days hits low income workers very hard. Every unpaid day sets them much further back.
- fatjokes 9y ago
  Those factor into total comp. Ie. they can buy health insurance and take unpaid time off, which would be equivalent to a significantly lower salary.
solatic 9y ago
> the pay for "janitorial work" has simply decreased. Author's point is not about decrease in pay but about the social changes that came about as a result of prioritizing the outsourcing of non-core-competency work to contractors, which increased competition and had the effect of reducing effective pay. In other words, income inequality has increased as contract work has increased, and the reason why is because a large part of social mobility is due to networking and connections, which are far stronger at companies which prefer in-sourcing compared to companies which prefer out-sourcing, since out-sourcing naturally creates an "us vs. them" dynamic at companies which is difficult to overcome. The implied conclusion is, if market forces are biased towards out-sourcing, then the government should incentivize in-sourcing as a means of combatting inequality.
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  That's the theory of the journalist, yes. The NYT does not actually show that though, they just state it/assume it. If you read through the comments, one of them points out a perhaps less popular explanation - Ms Ramos apparently does not speak English. Large quantities of low skill immigration will inevitably make life tougher for people like her. But that would not be an explanation that'd be acceptable to the Times.
  - solatic 9y ago
    > That's the theory of the journalist, yes. The NYT does not actually show that though, they just state it/assume it. Well what do you expect? Journalists write news articles, not peer-reviewed studies that obey the scientific method. A lack of English skills would certainly contribute to social isolation within an American company, so if anything, it helps drive home the point that social isolation exacerbates income inequality. I don't think anybody is making the argument that Apple bears responsibility for giving Ms. Ramos English fluency, and it's part of the reason why there aren't easy solutions. But you can't even think about solving the problem until you can start to think about its root causes.

lotsofpulp 9y ago

The reason for inequality is that people are not equal. The work they do produce is not equal in value. More people can do a janitor's job, and/or do without a janitor, so the value of a janitor's work is less. More supply, elastic demand, means lower price point. Through technology, some people are able to produce much more than others, so inequality is inevitable unless there is a balancing force (aka taxation).

thatfrenchguy 9y ago
Mimnimum wages, mandatory health insurance / vacation, ... All the things every country in the world does except one.
- AdrianB1 9y ago
  In Soviet Russia you get even more. Not kidding. Do you want to move there?
  - thatfrenchguy 9y ago
    I have no idea what you are talking about.
    - 21 9y ago
      Maybe he is referring to the fact that the Soviet bloc also gave you a job and a flat to live in.
      - AdrianB1 9y ago
        Exactly: they give you stuff, only to have the impression you have something and someone cares. Actually, nobody does not, the citizen is just a milk cow.
- bb611 9y ago
  Are you trying to claim the United States doesn't have those? Because it currently has 2 of those (minimum wage and a health insurance mandate) at the federal level.
  - thatfrenchguy 9y ago
    The United States have both of those implemented in exactly the wrong way: the minimum wage is livable nowhere, and there is still people without health insurance in the US today.
    - richardknop 9y ago
      Minimum wage is hardly livable anywhere in the western world so that has nothing to do with US. Show me any country in Europe where living in minimum wage means anything else than poverty in all but name.
adwhit 9y ago
Indeed, the value of keeping toilets sanitary is far greater than that of creating the next web app. "This work is essential to the health of the population, but because of something to do with marginal economics and supply and demand and weak labor laws and class power and reserve supply of labor, I don't have to pay a proper wage, or even treat them like human beings!"
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jfnixon 9y ago
  I'd say most web app developers can keep the toilets sanitary, if needed, with little training.
- lotsofpulp 9y ago
  Nature doesn't have a "proper" wage. The temporary moat of other countries being destroyed by ww2 and less efficient travel and lack of computers meant labor supply was constructed. The situation has now changed so there is more supply of labor (similar to when women came into the work force). You can't fight supply and demand, the people with lower quality of life (in developing countries) will work for less than the richer ones, so their product is cheaper, and in the marketplace people will buy cheaper products (as evident in our situation today).
- tomjen3 9y ago
  Value can be defined as how much people are willing to pay for it. Based on that, some webapps are worth more.
  - ericd 9y ago
    I think it's useful to remember that the work of one webapp developer can positively affect the lives of millions of people. Tech yields a counterintuitive amount of leverage.
- tuna-piano 9y ago
  Diamonds are also more expensive than water. But of course water is more valuable than diamonds. Price is not about total value provided to society but about the marginal value of one more diamond, 1 more gallon of water, 1 more janitor or 1 more programmer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_value
lozenge 9y ago
Your first paragraph, on supply and demand, is fairly accurate, but to say that "some people are able to produce much more than others" is oversimplifying. Consider a fast food restaurant with one cleaner, two people at the tills, three people in the kitchen, and one manager. Remove any of them and the lines will become too long, the place will become unacceptably dirty, etc. However, none of the employees is "producing" more than any other.
- lotsofpulp 9y ago
  Perhaps I shouldn't have used individuals, but in my opinion, it's easy to see that a team of engineers automating a factory produce, via their machines, much more than thousands of the factory workers who were doing rote work day after day. The people that developed email and whatnot produced more than the people who deliver mail, etc.
tiggybear 9y ago
Yes, but at some point people used to say "fuck this I'm not working 40 hours a week my whole life if I can't even buy a house and afford a few luxuries." And so that would restrict supply. People don't do this anymore for various reasons, frankly it's been demonized in our society. Lots of companies (/most?) restrict supply to drive up costs (diamonds, agriculture, digital media, etc), they don't produce at maximum/flood the market. They restrict supply to maintain a healthy profit margin. And people call this good business, but what do we call workers who do the same? I think their is a good argument to be made that our middle and lower classes have just been acting as bad business men and women and have been giving as much unrestricted supply as they've been asked for. It's bankrupting them, costing them their health, costing their children opportunities for good education and access to their parents bc they are working all the time. It's costing them the American Dream, if there ever was one. I do believe it's time for people to unionize or something. Unions are a whole other argument, but we can make new ones with new rules to make them better. People have to realize their bosses view their "worth" more so as leverage than output. People can increase their output all they want (which they often have: more degrees, more work hours, etc), but without an increase in leverage they won't be paid that. Further, this doesn't neccessarily mean anyone's boss is not paying them appropriately. It's possible the market at large needs to be adjusted to pay for these costs or more than likely a little of A and a little of B.

tcbawo 9y ago

Lack of a medical safety net and sick days hits low income workers very hard. Every unpaid day sets them much further back.

fatjokes 9y ago
Those factor into total comp. Ie. they can buy health insurance and take unpaid time off, which would be equivalent to a significantly lower salary.

solatic 9y ago

> the pay for "janitorial work" has simply decreased. Author's point is not about decrease in pay but about the social changes that came about as a result of prioritizing the outsourcing of non-core-competency work to contractors, which increased competition and had the effect of reducing effective pay. In other words, income inequality has increased as contract work has increased, and the reason why is because a large part of social mobility is due to networking and connections, which are far stronger at companies which prefer in-sourcing compared to companies which prefer out-sourcing, since out-sourcing naturally creates an "us vs. them" dynamic at companies which is difficult to overcome. The implied conclusion is, if market forces are biased towards out-sourcing, then the government should incentivize in-sourcing as a means of combatting inequality.

peoplewindow 9y ago
That's the theory of the journalist, yes. The NYT does not actually show that though, they just state it/assume it. If you read through the comments, one of them points out a perhaps less popular explanation - Ms Ramos apparently does not speak English. Large quantities of low skill immigration will inevitably make life tougher for people like her. But that would not be an explanation that'd be acceptable to the Times.
- solatic 9y ago
  > That's the theory of the journalist, yes. The NYT does not actually show that though, they just state it/assume it. Well what do you expect? Journalists write news articles, not peer-reviewed studies that obey the scientific method. A lack of English skills would certainly contribute to social isolation within an American company, so if anything, it helps drive home the point that social isolation exacerbates income inequality. I don't think anybody is making the argument that Apple bears responsibility for giving Ms. Ramos English fluency, and it's part of the reason why there aren't easy solutions. But you can't even think about solving the problem until you can start to think about its root causes.