3 ms·

I don't think I've committed that fallacy because I've never called these jobs "good" even if they are, for a particular person, the best among alternatives. W

I don't think I've committed that fallacy because I've never called these jobs "good" even if they are, for a particular person, the best among alternatives. Whether a business deserves to survive based on how it treats its lowest rung of workers requires a lot of value judgments I'm not prepared to make. Off the top of my head, Walmart provides access to low prices (saving money) to orders of magnitudes more customers, than workers it exploits. Their current starting salary is $11/hr. Whose job is it to make sure someone has enough money to live on? The term "living wage" ignores those who for some reason or other don't work. Who gave Walmart the responsibility to provide their employees a "living amount" of money, and whose responsibility is it for the unemployed?

toss1 7y ago
Whether or not we call them "good", the fallacy is that if a person takes an exploitative job as their least-worst option, that this is somehow acceptable. Perhaps in some idealized distopia, but not in any kind of modern society that is sustainable. >>who gave Walmart the responsibility to provide their employees a "living amount" of money, and whose responsibility is it for the unemployed? The same govt that sets the minimum wage, pay 7 overtime requirements, work safety requirements, etc. The entire structure of worker protection was developed precisely because previous generations finally figured out that the arguments you make are empty - Allowing unfetterd exploitation of workers results in a few rich capitalists, horrific Dickensian living conditions for most, and ends in revolution with even worse conditions. If you don't want to "make value judgements", you need only to look at whether practices will sustainably improve society. However, by avoiding those value judgements and the answer above, you are also basically saying that it is perfectly OK with you that I took the title to your house for that 5gal of water and map. I wonder if you are comfortable with that kind of value judgement.

toss1 7y ago

Whether or not we call them "good", the fallacy is that if a person takes an exploitative job as their least-worst option, that this is somehow acceptable. Perhaps in some idealized distopia, but not in any kind of modern society that is sustainable. >>who gave Walmart the responsibility to provide their employees a "living amount" of money, and whose responsibility is it for the unemployed? The same govt that sets the minimum wage, pay 7 overtime requirements, work safety requirements, etc. The entire structure of worker protection was developed precisely because previous generations finally figured out that the arguments you make are empty - Allowing unfetterd exploitation of workers results in a few rich capitalists, horrific Dickensian living conditions for most, and ends in revolution with even worse conditions. If you don't want to "make value judgements", you need only to look at whether practices will sustainably improve society. However, by avoiding those value judgements and the answer above, you are also basically saying that it is perfectly OK with you that I took the title to your house for that 5gal of water and map. I wonder if you are comfortable with that kind of value judgement.