4 ms·

I disagree with this: "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."

by burfog 9y ago

I disagree with this: "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." First, the low pay is a hint that too many people are trying to be employed in that type of job. The job really isn't necessary, at least in the amount that people are trying to do it. Second, we need starter jobs for teens. I suppose you could say my son is poor, ignoring the fact that he is a dependent minor child in a household that is not poor. Adults shouldn't be taking the low-paid starter jobs that teens need as references for college and/or future employers.

ItsMe000001 9y ago
> the low pay is a hint that too many people are trying to be employed in that type of job I got two replies and BOTH completely ignore that my entire comment was about just this. I wonder, why do you reply to a comment whose contents you chose to completely disregard? About the "teens": Low paying jobs are taken only by teens (I would accept even just "statistically speaking")? Hardly. Bad argument since your premise already doesn't pass a smell test. Nor does that argument make any sense at all. Pay low wages because of "entry job"? That is completely made up after the fact, in order to somehow make paying low pages sound acceptable.
- JesseWright 9y ago
  FWIW, I read through your entire comment a few times and did not understand that it was about having a surplus of workers for entry-level or low-pay, low-skill jobs. I see that you briefly mentioned it at the beginning, but it didn't seem to be a main point of your post. Maybe I'm just an idiot and missed it entirely, and maybe the other two commenters also just missed it completely, but it really seems as though you didn't convey that point clearly. In the future, it might be worth trying to take a less hostile approach when replying to people who missed the point of what you said.
  - Firadeoclus 9y ago
    I don't think the comment is "about" having a surplus of workers, but pointing to how that argument is a distraction. Putting the cart before the horse, if you will. It simply isn't a valid justification for paying people poorly.

by burfog 9y ago

ItsMe000001 9y ago

> the low pay is a hint that too many people are trying to be employed in that type of job I got two replies and BOTH completely ignore that my entire comment was about just this. I wonder, why do you reply to a comment whose contents you chose to completely disregard? About the "teens": Low paying jobs are taken only by teens (I would accept even just "statistically speaking")? Hardly. Bad argument since your premise already doesn't pass a smell test. Nor does that argument make any sense at all. Pay low wages because of "entry job"? That is completely made up after the fact, in order to somehow make paying low pages sound acceptable.

JesseWright 9y ago
FWIW, I read through your entire comment a few times and did not understand that it was about having a surplus of workers for entry-level or low-pay, low-skill jobs. I see that you briefly mentioned it at the beginning, but it didn't seem to be a main point of your post. Maybe I'm just an idiot and missed it entirely, and maybe the other two commenters also just missed it completely, but it really seems as though you didn't convey that point clearly. In the future, it might be worth trying to take a less hostile approach when replying to people who missed the point of what you said.
- Firadeoclus 9y ago
  I don't think the comment is "about" having a surplus of workers, but pointing to how that argument is a distraction. Putting the cart before the horse, if you will. It simply isn't a valid justification for paying people poorly.