3 ms·

> Americans would starve and die of exposure on those wages. No, they wouldn’t. Americans survived on wages lower than that in the past. They would simply have

by xyzzyz 7y ago

> Americans would starve and die of exposure on those wages. No, they wouldn’t. Americans survived on wages lower than that in the past. They would simply have to adjust their lifestyle to look more like the one of Bangladeshi —- unless you assume that Americans are somehow extremely inept compared to Bangladeshi.

CharlesColeman 7y ago
>> Americans would starve and die of exposure [in America] on [Bangladeshi] wages. > No, they wouldn’t.... [Americans] would simply have to adjust their lifestyle to look more like the one of Bangladeshi I appreciate your honesty, but listen to what you're saying. No one "simply" accepts massive regressions in living standards across large swaths of the economy, and that's exactly what you'd need for Bangladeshi wages to be livable in the US. That kind of thing leads to revolutions, and rightly so.
asdff 7y ago
Are you implying that the people currently starving and dieing of exposure living in bangladeshi-style slums right on the streets of San Fransisco is an acceptable outcome? We should be paying more people a wage that forces them to live like that? Or do we look at the growing inequality in this country and realize we can definitely afford to add a couple bucks to a poor guys hourly rate so he doesn't have to give 60% of his income to the parasite landlord every month.
- atypicality 7y ago
  What do you have against landlords? Every situation has an economic element to it. It shouldn't be assumed that every person who is a boss, landlord or business owner is assumed to be some sort of crook for having money. Maybe the landlord is upside down on his property and takes a loss every month. You just don't know.
macintux 7y ago
You can’t be serious. The only way to survive on $600/year is to live somewhere that’s a viable income. There’s nowhere in the US where you can do that, unless you count unofficial homeless encampments, and I’d wager anyone living there who only brought in $600/year in government benefits and other sources would quickly die.

by xyzzyz 7y ago

CharlesColeman 7y ago

>> Americans would starve and die of exposure [in America] on [Bangladeshi] wages. > No, they wouldn’t.... [Americans] would simply have to adjust their lifestyle to look more like the one of Bangladeshi I appreciate your honesty, but listen to what you're saying. No one "simply" accepts massive regressions in living standards across large swaths of the economy, and that's exactly what you'd need for Bangladeshi wages to be livable in the US. That kind of thing leads to revolutions, and rightly so.

asdff 7y ago

Are you implying that the people currently starving and dieing of exposure living in bangladeshi-style slums right on the streets of San Fransisco is an acceptable outcome? We should be paying more people a wage that forces them to live like that? Or do we look at the growing inequality in this country and realize we can definitely afford to add a couple bucks to a poor guys hourly rate so he doesn't have to give 60% of his income to the parasite landlord every month.

atypicality 7y ago
What do you have against landlords? Every situation has an economic element to it. It shouldn't be assumed that every person who is a boss, landlord or business owner is assumed to be some sort of crook for having money. Maybe the landlord is upside down on his property and takes a loss every month. You just don't know.

macintux 7y ago

You can’t be serious. The only way to survive on $600/year is to live somewhere that’s a viable income. There’s nowhere in the US where you can do that, unless you count unofficial homeless encampments, and I’d wager anyone living there who only brought in $600/year in government benefits and other sources would quickly die.