6 ms·

> our community relies on to supplement their income, support their families While their marketing promotes driving as a fun side gig, their PR defending their

by danans 7y ago

> our community relies on to supplement their income, support their families While their marketing promotes driving as a fun side gig, their PR defending their labor practices includes supporting families. It's not surprising coming from corporate PR, but the selective choice of arguments is pretty obvious. But then again, in a society where the general populace's basic welfare is largely left to market forces, maybe it's not a stretch for corporations to make the claim that supporting families is among their side-effects (but not objectives).

grecy 7y ago
Just like how McDonald's actually recommends it's employees get another job. Companies in the US are utterly out of control with regards to paying a living wage.
- kuzimoto 7y ago
  You can't really expect to be paid a living wage at a job that can be done by 14 year olds, can you? There is also a greater supply of low skilled labor available, lowering price of labor. I think you should work 1 to 2 crappy jobs building skills until you can find a single good job. McDonald's also has programs that offer college tuition assistance.
  - grecy 7y ago
    > You can't really expect to be paid a living wage at a job that can be done by 14 year olds, can you? I expect everyone to be paid a living wage at every full-time job. That's the very definition.
    - kuzimoto 7y ago
      Do you have a source to back that claim? I can't find anything that states "full time" equals "living wage". Only referring to the minimum number of hours an employee has to work from receive benefits "part time" employees typically don't get, like paid time off or health insurance. Additionally the Fair Labor Standards Act (for US anyway) does not give any formal definition of "full time" work, and is up to the employer. Only that covered nonexempt workers working more than 40 hours are entitled to overtime. It's fine to disagree, but at least provide some sort of substance to your argument...
      - atwebb 7y ago
        Personally, it is in the name: full-time job. It takes your full job time, it says that there is a measurable amount of job you can have and that it is full with that one. Following that logic, if you fill all of your available job time, there is an assumption (mine and others) that it would provide simply because if you can't, you need more job to do so, making it not a full-time job.
        kuzimoto 7y ago
        The problem with your logic, is that you still don't define what "full time" equals. There are 24 hours in a day, so is full-time working 24 hours/day? Obviously that's not practical, but then where do you draw the line? Any conclusion you come up with is completely subjective, and might fit for some people, and might not for others. Maybe someone's full-time job is someone else's part-time job.
        fwip 7y ago
        That's not a problem with their logic, that's a problem of your pedantry. Draw the line wherever you think it should be drawn. Their argument is still true. The argument doesn't change whether full-time is 25 hours or 75 hours. Every single adult working whatever society agrees is "full time" should be able to live comfortably on those wages.
        kuzimoto 7y ago
        > Every single adult working whatever society agrees is "full time" should be able to live comfortably on those wages. I agree that would be nice, it's just not possible in a free market. Is there any country where everyone lives comfortably working full time at any job?
        fwip 7y ago
        That darn free market. If only there was some way to, idk, regulate it, or something. Unfortunately, it's an inevitable law of nature and we are helpless in the face of its wrath.

by danans 7y ago

grecy 7y ago

Just like how McDonald's actually recommends it's employees get another job. Companies in the US are utterly out of control with regards to paying a living wage.

kuzimoto 7y ago
You can't really expect to be paid a living wage at a job that can be done by 14 year olds, can you? There is also a greater supply of low skilled labor available, lowering price of labor. I think you should work 1 to 2 crappy jobs building skills until you can find a single good job. McDonald's also has programs that offer college tuition assistance.
- grecy 7y ago
  > You can't really expect to be paid a living wage at a job that can be done by 14 year olds, can you? I expect everyone to be paid a living wage at every full-time job. That's the very definition.
  - kuzimoto 7y ago
    Do you have a source to back that claim? I can't find anything that states "full time" equals "living wage". Only referring to the minimum number of hours an employee has to work from receive benefits "part time" employees typically don't get, like paid time off or health insurance. Additionally the Fair Labor Standards Act (for US anyway) does not give any formal definition of "full time" work, and is up to the employer. Only that covered nonexempt workers working more than 40 hours are entitled to overtime. It's fine to disagree, but at least provide some sort of substance to your argument...
    - atwebb 7y ago
      Personally, it is in the name: full-time job. It takes your full job time, it says that there is a measurable amount of job you can have and that it is full with that one. Following that logic, if you fill all of your available job time, there is an assumption (mine and others) that it would provide simply because if you can't, you need more job to do so, making it not a full-time job.
      - kuzimoto 7y ago
        The problem with your logic, is that you still don't define what "full time" equals. There are 24 hours in a day, so is full-time working 24 hours/day? Obviously that's not practical, but then where do you draw the line? Any conclusion you come up with is completely subjective, and might fit for some people, and might not for others. Maybe someone's full-time job is someone else's part-time job.
        fwip 7y ago
        That's not a problem with their logic, that's a problem of your pedantry. Draw the line wherever you think it should be drawn. Their argument is still true. The argument doesn't change whether full-time is 25 hours or 75 hours. Every single adult working whatever society agrees is "full time" should be able to live comfortably on those wages.
        kuzimoto 7y ago
        > Every single adult working whatever society agrees is "full time" should be able to live comfortably on those wages. I agree that would be nice, it's just not possible in a free market. Is there any country where everyone lives comfortably working full time at any job?
        fwip 7y ago
        That darn free market. If only there was some way to, idk, regulate it, or something. Unfortunately, it's an inevitable law of nature and we are helpless in the face of its wrath.