9 ms·

Yeah I don't know how much more people expect to be paid. It's a completely unskilled job that almost anyone can do. Complaining that $21/hr isn't enough would

Yeah I don't know how much more people expect to be paid. It's a completely unskilled job that almost anyone can do. Complaining that $21/hr isn't enough would be insane at this point.

behringer 7y ago
Well the CEO of walmart pulls in 22 million a year. I can tell you right now that 21/hr is doable for every unskilled laborer in the US today.
- pequalsnp 7y ago
  The problem that arises is that if you artificially inflate someone's wages to an arbitrary number like 21/hr, they might not provide enough value to economically justify the wage level they're set at. It's not, and shouldn't be, an emotional argument. It's an economical one.
  - behringer 7y ago
    The CEO of walmart most certainly isn't worth 22 million/year. If you can't bring in 21/hour as a cab driver you probably shouldn't be driving cab, especially considering you should be pulling in, what, well over 100/hr gross?
    - pequalsnp 7y ago
      What evidence do you have that the CEO doesn't bring that much in value to Walmart?
      - behringer 7y ago
        "Bad managers cost just as much as good managers." https://investorplace.com/2018/07/are-ceos-really-worth-what-theyre-paid/ https://investorplace.com/2018/07/are-ceos-really-worth-what... See also: https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-companies-pay-ceos-for-good-performanceand-bad-11558085402 https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-companies-pay-ceos-for-good... https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/16/the-highest-paid-ceos-are-the-worst-performers-new-study-says/#6045b5607e32 https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/16/the-highe...
        pequalsnp 7y ago
        I CTRL+F'd for Walmart in each article but didn't find anything. I thought that was the topic of discussion?
        behringer 7y ago
        You're mistaken
        tryptophan 7y ago
        These articles present an incredibly naive analysis of the situation. The logic is "high pay should equal high stock performance" but this fails to recognize that in an effecient market the ability and salary of the ceo would already be priced into the stock, and thus would have "no effect" on its performance. You can't prove that the stock would've done less-worse if a different (lower paid) ceo was there, which is essentially what these articles try and argue.
  - smileysteve 7y ago
    The economic argument however, also includes taxes, the welfare state, etc; If a job pays less than the cost of living in an area, then the job is somewhere between subsidized by the government or not economically viable.
  - morvita 7y ago
    Frankly, I don't care about any economic argument that says people shouldn't have the ability to put food on their table, a roof over their head, and have decent healthcare. Any company that cannot be profitable and pay their employees enough to cover basic needs shouldn't exist as a company.
    - dymk 7y ago
      They can go find a different job that pays more. Uber driving is not skilled labor. How it’s justified as a 21/hr job I don’t understand.
      - morvita 7y ago
        I genuinely don't know how to explain that the fact it requires an income of more than 21/hr to meet basic needs is all the justification that should be required. Maybe if we stopped thinking of employees/contractors as "labor" and thought of them as people it would be easier to empathize with their needs. Do you think that your friends, family, and loved ones deserve a wage that meets their basic needs? Why shouldn't all humans deserve the same?
        dymk 7y ago
        It only requires that amount if you’re intent on living in the most expensive cities in the entire country.
        F147H34D 7y ago
        Yes. All of the Uber drivers and other unskilled labor should move to Montana. That would be super helpful for those needing rides in SF.
        dymk 7y ago
        Uber was never a career, it was a side gig.
my_username_is_ 7y ago
>$21 isn’t a living wage for any category of worker in the San Francisco metro area except a single adult or two adults living together Is it really insane that people should get paid a living wage, regardless of whether it's a 'skilled job' or not?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ben509 7y ago
  A "living wage" bundles the assumption that a single wage must pay for all your expenses in maintaining a predetermined standard of living and that there's no other possible arrangement that should be considered. And that is, in fact, insane, as it's contrary to the experience of anyone who has worked two jobs, shared a flat, budgeted, or otherwise been creative in making ends meet.
  - fwip 7y ago
    "People deserve to be able to live comfortably on a single job at 40 hours a week." "Nuh uh, some people have been creative and survived under the current system!"
    - ben509 7y ago
      "I'd like to work two low paying jobs that work around my lifestyle." "Nope, because we care so much, your lifestyle is illegal."
      - fwip 7y ago
        Yep, if Uber pays $21 an hour, you can't possibly drive for both Uber and Lyft, or work a side-hustle. That will definitely be against the law.
- jtcruthers 7y ago
  Yes, it is. Is it really that insane that doing a job a monkey could do shouldn't be paid the same as jobs that require actual skill? Why can't that be a job you do on the side for a little extra cash on the weekends? Why does every job need to provide a "living wage"?
abugheratwork 7y ago
$21.00 x 40 hours x 52 weeks = 43,680 in pay, for roughly one year. $3,706 x 12 months = $44,472 in rent. That's the first number I found on google for "san francisco average rent price" (without quotes). I agree that those numbers are insane. Accusing someone who makes less than he needs to rent decent housing of complaining seems quite wrong. I understand that San Francisco is at the high end of cost of living. It's also where Uber and Lyft are centered. The point of the article seems to be that Uber and Lyft support this idea because they're hoping to undermine more meaningful protective legislation, specifically California Assembly Bill 5. Claiming that this low-ball offer from large corporations would be too hurtful to those corporations, and far too generous to their workers, would be ... insane, right?
- jefftk 7y ago
  While SF rents are nuts, just paying people more doesn't fix it: we need to allow more housing to be built.
- acchow 7y ago
  This is about a California policy. San Francisco makes up 2.3% of California's population. It's not even relevant to this discussion.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  Should someone necessarily be able to afford an apartment on their own in one of the most expensive housing markets from an activity that nearly every American adult does?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
ghobs91 7y ago
Here's a thought experiment I like to use whenever this comes up. If someone were to approach you on the street and ask you to do something for them that will take an hour of your time, what amount of money do you think would be a fair compensation for just the time expense? Now add to that the fact that it's not just an hour of someones time, it's also an hour of use of an expensive machine they own and maintain. I've found that when minimum wage is thought of in this way, anything less than $20-25/hour sounds absurd.

Yeah I don't know how much more people expect to be paid. It's a completely unskilled job that almost anyone can do. Complaining that $21/hr isn't enough would be insane at this point.

behringer 7y ago

Well the CEO of walmart pulls in 22 million a year. I can tell you right now that 21/hr is doable for every unskilled laborer in the US today.

pequalsnp 7y ago
The problem that arises is that if you artificially inflate someone's wages to an arbitrary number like 21/hr, they might not provide enough value to economically justify the wage level they're set at. It's not, and shouldn't be, an emotional argument. It's an economical one.
- behringer 7y ago
  The CEO of walmart most certainly isn't worth 22 million/year. If you can't bring in 21/hour as a cab driver you probably shouldn't be driving cab, especially considering you should be pulling in, what, well over 100/hr gross?
  - pequalsnp 7y ago
    What evidence do you have that the CEO doesn't bring that much in value to Walmart?
    - behringer 7y ago
      "Bad managers cost just as much as good managers." https://investorplace.com/2018/07/are-ceos-really-worth-what-theyre-paid/ https://investorplace.com/2018/07/are-ceos-really-worth-what... See also: https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-companies-pay-ceos-for-good-performanceand-bad-11558085402 https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-companies-pay-ceos-for-good... https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/16/the-highest-paid-ceos-are-the-worst-performers-new-study-says/#6045b5607e32 https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/16/the-highe...
      - pequalsnp 7y ago
        I CTRL+F'd for Walmart in each article but didn't find anything. I thought that was the topic of discussion?
        behringer 7y ago
        You're mistaken
      - tryptophan 7y ago
        These articles present an incredibly naive analysis of the situation. The logic is "high pay should equal high stock performance" but this fails to recognize that in an effecient market the ability and salary of the ceo would already be priced into the stock, and thus would have "no effect" on its performance. You can't prove that the stock would've done less-worse if a different (lower paid) ceo was there, which is essentially what these articles try and argue.
- smileysteve 7y ago
  The economic argument however, also includes taxes, the welfare state, etc; If a job pays less than the cost of living in an area, then the job is somewhere between subsidized by the government or not economically viable.
- morvita 7y ago
  Frankly, I don't care about any economic argument that says people shouldn't have the ability to put food on their table, a roof over their head, and have decent healthcare. Any company that cannot be profitable and pay their employees enough to cover basic needs shouldn't exist as a company.
  - dymk 7y ago
    They can go find a different job that pays more. Uber driving is not skilled labor. How it’s justified as a 21/hr job I don’t understand.
    - morvita 7y ago
      I genuinely don't know how to explain that the fact it requires an income of more than 21/hr to meet basic needs is all the justification that should be required. Maybe if we stopped thinking of employees/contractors as "labor" and thought of them as people it would be easier to empathize with their needs. Do you think that your friends, family, and loved ones deserve a wage that meets their basic needs? Why shouldn't all humans deserve the same?
      - dymk 7y ago
        It only requires that amount if you’re intent on living in the most expensive cities in the entire country.
        F147H34D 7y ago
        Yes. All of the Uber drivers and other unskilled labor should move to Montana. That would be super helpful for those needing rides in SF.
        dymk 7y ago
        Uber was never a career, it was a side gig.

my_username_is_ 7y ago

>$21 isn’t a living wage for any category of worker in the San Francisco metro area except a single adult or two adults living together Is it really insane that people should get paid a living wage, regardless of whether it's a 'skilled job' or not?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ben509 7y ago
A "living wage" bundles the assumption that a single wage must pay for all your expenses in maintaining a predetermined standard of living and that there's no other possible arrangement that should be considered. And that is, in fact, insane, as it's contrary to the experience of anyone who has worked two jobs, shared a flat, budgeted, or otherwise been creative in making ends meet.
- fwip 7y ago
  "People deserve to be able to live comfortably on a single job at 40 hours a week." "Nuh uh, some people have been creative and survived under the current system!"
  - ben509 7y ago
    "I'd like to work two low paying jobs that work around my lifestyle." "Nope, because we care so much, your lifestyle is illegal."
    - fwip 7y ago
      Yep, if Uber pays $21 an hour, you can't possibly drive for both Uber and Lyft, or work a side-hustle. That will definitely be against the law.
jtcruthers 7y ago
Yes, it is. Is it really that insane that doing a job a monkey could do shouldn't be paid the same as jobs that require actual skill? Why can't that be a job you do on the side for a little extra cash on the weekends? Why does every job need to provide a "living wage"?

abugheratwork 7y ago

$21.00 x 40 hours x 52 weeks = 43,680 in pay, for roughly one year. $3,706 x 12 months = $44,472 in rent. That's the first number I found on google for "san francisco average rent price" (without quotes). I agree that those numbers are insane. Accusing someone who makes less than he needs to rent decent housing of complaining seems quite wrong. I understand that San Francisco is at the high end of cost of living. It's also where Uber and Lyft are centered. The point of the article seems to be that Uber and Lyft support this idea because they're hoping to undermine more meaningful protective legislation, specifically California Assembly Bill 5. Claiming that this low-ball offer from large corporations would be too hurtful to those corporations, and far too generous to their workers, would be ... insane, right?

jefftk 7y ago
While SF rents are nuts, just paying people more doesn't fix it: we need to allow more housing to be built.
acchow 7y ago
This is about a California policy. San Francisco makes up 2.3% of California's population. It's not even relevant to this discussion.
sokoloff 7y ago
Should someone necessarily be able to afford an apartment on their own in one of the most expensive housing markets from an activity that nearly every American adult does?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

ghobs91 7y ago

Here's a thought experiment I like to use whenever this comes up. If someone were to approach you on the street and ask you to do something for them that will take an hour of your time, what amount of money do you think would be a fair compensation for just the time expense? Now add to that the fact that it's not just an hour of someones time, it's also an hour of use of an expensive machine they own and maintain. I've found that when minimum wage is thought of in this way, anything less than $20-25/hour sounds absurd.