4 ms·

> Do you agree that "delivery drivers" should get a fair salary? What is "fair"? One variety of "fair" is "getting a reasonable cut of the profit made from th

> Do you agree that "delivery drivers" should get a fair salary? What is "fair"? One variety of "fair" is "getting a reasonable cut of the profit made from their actions", where "reasonable" is based on what the market will bear - i.e. if your labour is undercut by someone else, then it's a race to the bottom. This is what guilds and then trade unions originally evolved to deal with. Another variety of "fair" that seems to be gaining mindshare is the idea that you deserve a "living wage" for literally any full-time job, which is a new idea unsubstantiated by economic reality. It belies the fact that there are jobs that do have some demand, but simply aren't worth enough to the people who'd pay for them that they can supply a "living wage". And what's living? Is mung beans, rice, and a shared room in a house "living" enough or does everyone need their full maximized-carbon-footprint atomized solo lifestyle in order to "live"?

elamje 7y ago
The concept of "fair" is driving so much policy in the world right now, but there is no one definition. The concept that no one can settle on a definition for, is the concept that is, and will increasingly be, at the forefront of politics for the next century.
perl4ever 7y ago
"And what's living?" Implicit in most discussions, but frequently left unstated, is the idea that a wage-earner should be able to support several dependents. Obviously how many makes a huge difference in what kind of pay is needed.
- core-questions 7y ago
  Again, at what level of luxury? I know people making six figures that are utterly convinced they're not able to afford to have children. I know people making a third of that who have five kids and seem happy enough, though as harried and as cash-strapped as you'd expect.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    Well, my point is that it's O(N), regardless of the constant factor.
briandear 7y ago
Guilds didn’t evolve over protecting wages per se, but as a means to monopolize the supply of their labor by limiting those that could enter their trade. They were a monopoly of labor and similarly motivated by those that had monopolies of steel or the railroads. Guilds were about protecting their business by excluding or marginalizing competition and using their power to further protect their own bottom line from competition.
- core-questions 7y ago
  Seems like a reasonable thing for a skilled labourer to do, and really not dissimilar from what unions are still doing at large scales.
kartan 7y ago
> Is mung beans, rice, and a shared room in a house "living" enough or does everyone need their full maximized-carbon-footprint atomized solo lifestyle in order to "live"? That is the straw man fallacy. You moved the post from a discussion about fair salaries to one about everybody sharing the same house and eating only beans and rice. The question is if delivery drivers should have a fair salary that allows them to have a decent life. Do you agree that "delivery drivers" should get a fair salary that allows them to have a decent life? > Another variety of "fair" that seems to be gaining mindshare is the idea that you deserve a "living wage" for literally any full-time job, which is a new idea unsubstantiated by economic reality. I mean this one, that is why I said: " that allows them to have a decent life.". > unsubstantiated by economic reality The opposite is true. More equal societies have higher economic output. Reducing poverty reduces crime, reduces health care costs, etc. Even better makes people's lives better. So, it is a positive feedback loop.
- core-questions 7y ago
  > You moved the post from a discussion about fair salaries to one about everybody sharing the same house and eating only beans and rice. Only because it was not defined what was meant by "fair". I'm not going to agree to some premise only to be hoist up by it later. Maybe I don't agree people deserve a "fair" salary by your standards, maybe I do by other standards. > Do you agree that "delivery drivers" should get a fair salary that allows them to have a decent life? What's a decent life? Is there something indecent about having beans, rice, and a roof? Isn't it better than what many people have had, historically? It's not what I want, I doubt it's what they want, but is it _unfair_? Why? > More equal societies have higher economic output. No. Societies which have higher economic output are more capable of artificially subsidizing "equality" by redistributing income. You cannot take poverty, spread it around, and make richness. You can take richness and spread it around and help abate poverty, but only to a certain extent.
  - kartan 7y ago
    I guess that we both agree that you need resources to create wealth. Without resources, wealth cannot be created. I guess, that we both agree that you need education, knowledge and science to use that resources in an efficient way. That technology+resources create wealth. My argument, for which I provide some links, is that you need to redistribute that wealth so everybody profits form it for that wealth to be sustainable: "Economic growth provides the basis for overcoming poverty and lifting living standards. But for growth to be sustained and inclusive, its benefits must reach all people." * https://blogs.imf.org/2017/09/20/growth-that-reaches-everyone-facts-factors-tools/ https://blogs.imf.org/2017/09/20/growth-that-reaches-everyon... * https://www.oecd.org/newsroom/inequality-hurts-economic-growth.htm https://www.oecd.org/newsroom/inequality-hurts-economic-grow... But, maybe we have different values and that is the root cause of our disagreement. I think that giving everybody enough to cover their needs is the goal of society. To remove poverty is a goal to achieve. Higher economic output is not a goal, but a means to achieve the goal of humans well being. Improving the economy is a means for humans to live better.

elamje 7y ago

The concept of "fair" is driving so much policy in the world right now, but there is no one definition. The concept that no one can settle on a definition for, is the concept that is, and will increasingly be, at the forefront of politics for the next century.

perl4ever 7y ago

"And what's living?" Implicit in most discussions, but frequently left unstated, is the idea that a wage-earner should be able to support several dependents. Obviously how many makes a huge difference in what kind of pay is needed.

core-questions 7y ago
Again, at what level of luxury? I know people making six figures that are utterly convinced they're not able to afford to have children. I know people making a third of that who have five kids and seem happy enough, though as harried and as cash-strapped as you'd expect.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  Well, my point is that it's O(N), regardless of the constant factor.

briandear 7y ago

Guilds didn’t evolve over protecting wages per se, but as a means to monopolize the supply of their labor by limiting those that could enter their trade. They were a monopoly of labor and similarly motivated by those that had monopolies of steel or the railroads. Guilds were about protecting their business by excluding or marginalizing competition and using their power to further protect their own bottom line from competition.

core-questions 7y ago
Seems like a reasonable thing for a skilled labourer to do, and really not dissimilar from what unions are still doing at large scales.

kartan 7y ago

> Is mung beans, rice, and a shared room in a house "living" enough or does everyone need their full maximized-carbon-footprint atomized solo lifestyle in order to "live"? That is the straw man fallacy. You moved the post from a discussion about fair salaries to one about everybody sharing the same house and eating only beans and rice. The question is if delivery drivers should have a fair salary that allows them to have a decent life. Do you agree that "delivery drivers" should get a fair salary that allows them to have a decent life? > Another variety of "fair" that seems to be gaining mindshare is the idea that you deserve a "living wage" for literally any full-time job, which is a new idea unsubstantiated by economic reality. I mean this one, that is why I said: " that allows them to have a decent life.". > unsubstantiated by economic reality The opposite is true. More equal societies have higher economic output. Reducing poverty reduces crime, reduces health care costs, etc. Even better makes people's lives better. So, it is a positive feedback loop.

core-questions 7y ago
> You moved the post from a discussion about fair salaries to one about everybody sharing the same house and eating only beans and rice. Only because it was not defined what was meant by "fair". I'm not going to agree to some premise only to be hoist up by it later. Maybe I don't agree people deserve a "fair" salary by your standards, maybe I do by other standards. > Do you agree that "delivery drivers" should get a fair salary that allows them to have a decent life? What's a decent life? Is there something indecent about having beans, rice, and a roof? Isn't it better than what many people have had, historically? It's not what I want, I doubt it's what they want, but is it _unfair_? Why? > More equal societies have higher economic output. No. Societies which have higher economic output are more capable of artificially subsidizing "equality" by redistributing income. You cannot take poverty, spread it around, and make richness. You can take richness and spread it around and help abate poverty, but only to a certain extent.
- kartan 7y ago
  I guess that we both agree that you need resources to create wealth. Without resources, wealth cannot be created. I guess, that we both agree that you need education, knowledge and science to use that resources in an efficient way. That technology+resources create wealth. My argument, for which I provide some links, is that you need to redistribute that wealth so everybody profits form it for that wealth to be sustainable: "Economic growth provides the basis for overcoming poverty and lifting living standards. But for growth to be sustained and inclusive, its benefits must reach all people." * https://blogs.imf.org/2017/09/20/growth-that-reaches-everyone-facts-factors-tools/ https://blogs.imf.org/2017/09/20/growth-that-reaches-everyon... * https://www.oecd.org/newsroom/inequality-hurts-economic-growth.htm https://www.oecd.org/newsroom/inequality-hurts-economic-grow... But, maybe we have different values and that is the root cause of our disagreement. I think that giving everybody enough to cover their needs is the goal of society. To remove poverty is a goal to achieve. Higher economic output is not a goal, but a means to achieve the goal of humans well being. Improving the economy is a means for humans to live better.