5 ms·

I would tend to agree but add one condition: They have to pay good living wages to all their employees, not just to the few (relative to total nr. of employees)

I would tend to agree but add one condition: They have to pay good living wages to all their employees, not just to the few (relative to total nr. of employees) at the top level, e.g. software engineers. Yes yes - "the market", surplus of low-skilled labor, etc. Look, as far as I can tell the "economy" and everything we have to guide it is the tool(!) and the humans are the top target, and not the other way around. That means if we find areas where the tool fails to deliver we have to adjust and use a different one. All those arguments based on "theory" place the tool first and make it the goal. I like this quote a lot (found on twitter, I found it on reddit): > When you blame a poor person for not getting a better job, you accept that while their job is necessary, whoever does it should be poor. (source: https://twitter.com/existentialcoms/status/855501957288517632 https://twitter.com/existentialcoms/status/85550195728851763...) And from the reddit comments this one: > My favorite thing to ever hear come out of a custom's mouth was "get a real job". Standing there, performing a service that they themselves are requesting and spending legal tender on, and they don't see the validity of said job. I love efficiency. I love people who work hard, and who keep learning, experimenting, failing. I love entrepreneurs. I am independent myself, had a small business and worked as freelancer consultant. I also consider myself "conservative" when it comes to how to deal with "low-performers" who do so for no reason other than laziness. And yet, I won't accept the "market outcome" of extremely low wages and stressful lives (e.g. long commutes, multiple jobs, bad housing, etc.) for people who actually try, and I'd say that includes everyone who takes one of those warehouse jobs or any other job. The theory and the tool ("the market") are failing us because they could not care less about human fates. There is no reason whatsoever to accept that. It is completely in our power to do something about it. We should use "the market" when it works and look for a different tool when it doesn't. Already society is extremely selective about it (and equally selective in its perception), so nothing I say introduces a new element, not even at scale. So I see two choices (that I like, obviously other people can come up with other options including "everything is fine as it is"): - Force businesses like Amazon to pay living wages. This means they will have to have higher prices. Maybe large parts of their business model might not work any more. - Subsidize the work. Choose this option if you think having Amazon outcompete other businesses in some sectors still is better than not having it. Of course, anything is going to have a (low-skill labor) "market distorting effect". So what? It's not like there is none right now, the price for it all is being paid even now: The burden is carried by the employees, on shoulders considerably less capable of carrying it compared to other options.

tudelo 8y ago
> When you blame a poor person for not getting a better job, you accept that while their job is necessary, whoever does it should be poor. But is that the case? Maybe there are too many people able to do the job. Maybe they accept lower wages because it is the job they want. Maybe there are too many people who want to do the job. That doesn't mean that anyone doing the job should be poor, but it doesn't make sense to pay more for a worker of the same capacity when you can pay less. So, maybe a worker who can do job X should really work on getting a better (read: higher paying) job. Why does that translate to "anyone doing that job should be poor"? Also, the worker is not necessarily necessary at the given job strictly speaking. There are plenty of reasons to not do something, but really there is quite a lot of autonomy afforded to people in the US to improve their job standing... I am not against living wages as you state later in your post but that is somewhat a separate issue.
- ItsMe000001 8y ago
  > > When you blame a poor person for not getting a better job, you accept that while their job is necessary, whoever does it should be poor. > But is that the case? Yes. > Maybe they accept lower wages because it is the job they want. Did you read the quote? It is about what other people say to the worker. I feel like you did not read my comment, because your next sentence is > Maybe there are too many people who want to do the job. My whole post addressed that from beginning to end. Sometimes I have no words when I read replies to my comments. It feels... so futile to try to have a reasonable discussion when people completely ignore anything I say (write). . I already accepted that other people may feel differently when I inserted: > (that I like, obviously other people can come up with other options including "everything is fine as it is) because one thing is definitely true: This is not a law of nature. You can have a society where every Sunday a baby is thrown into a volcano (reference to somewhat similar recent headline from a finding in Peru, only 550 years or so ago, of children with their hearts cut out). The universe could not care less. It is completely up to what you/we want. You can certainly have a society like the current US of A, the richest country on the planet - in both space as well as time, simultaneously having 3rd world conditions for a sizable part of the population: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/15/america-extreme-poverty-un-special-rapporteur https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/15/america-extr...

tudelo 8y ago

> When you blame a poor person for not getting a better job, you accept that while their job is necessary, whoever does it should be poor. But is that the case? Maybe there are too many people able to do the job. Maybe they accept lower wages because it is the job they want. Maybe there are too many people who want to do the job. That doesn't mean that anyone doing the job should be poor, but it doesn't make sense to pay more for a worker of the same capacity when you can pay less. So, maybe a worker who can do job X should really work on getting a better (read: higher paying) job. Why does that translate to "anyone doing that job should be poor"? Also, the worker is not necessarily necessary at the given job strictly speaking. There are plenty of reasons to not do something, but really there is quite a lot of autonomy afforded to people in the US to improve their job standing... I am not against living wages as you state later in your post but that is somewhat a separate issue.

ItsMe000001 8y ago
> > When you blame a poor person for not getting a better job, you accept that while their job is necessary, whoever does it should be poor. > But is that the case? Yes. > Maybe they accept lower wages because it is the job they want. Did you read the quote? It is about what other people say to the worker. I feel like you did not read my comment, because your next sentence is > Maybe there are too many people who want to do the job. My whole post addressed that from beginning to end. Sometimes I have no words when I read replies to my comments. It feels... so futile to try to have a reasonable discussion when people completely ignore anything I say (write). . I already accepted that other people may feel differently when I inserted: > (that I like, obviously other people can come up with other options including "everything is fine as it is) because one thing is definitely true: This is not a law of nature. You can have a society where every Sunday a baby is thrown into a volcano (reference to somewhat similar recent headline from a finding in Peru, only 550 years or so ago, of children with their hearts cut out). The universe could not care less. It is completely up to what you/we want. You can certainly have a society like the current US of A, the richest country on the planet - in both space as well as time, simultaneously having 3rd world conditions for a sizable part of the population: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/15/america-extreme-poverty-un-special-rapporteur https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/15/america-extr...