6 ms·

"during this period"? They're as essential to our survival even if we're not in a pandemic. It's maybe time we recognized that and stopped exploiting labor jus

"during this period"? They're as essential to our survival even if we're not in a pandemic. It's maybe time we recognized that and stopped exploiting labor just because it's unskilled. If we paid them by the value they actually create. I'd really urge you to reconsider your stance, and be there to help them advocate for fair pay even when this is over.

lotsofpulp 7y ago
How would the value they create or "fair pay" be measured?
- groby_b 7y ago
  "fair pay" -> well, let's start with "treated like human beings, not chattel", "afforded basic hygiene & health measures", "kept safe in a crisis". From there, we get to "would you die without them? If yes, maybe they're underpaid. Maybe $18K a year just isn't fair pay under any circumstances, not if we can't force people via a "well, you could always die" clause. As for the value they create - you have food available to you. How valuable is that to you? Would you like it if farm workers applied the "well, you could always die or do it yourself" clause? Because at some point, that becomes an option.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    If I were a business owner trying to figure out how much to pay, I would not be able to deduce the numerical figure from your comment. I understand what you're saying, my intention is to display how easy it is to say, but how difficult it is to execute. Currently, we pay people what it costs to replace them, but it would be nice if we could snap our fingers and give everyone a global standard of living equal to whatever the top 5% live in. Unfortunately, that's not possible, and short of a country wide or world wide effort to implement some type of UBI, I don't see much chance of success.
    - groby_b 7y ago
      "If I were a business owner trying to figure out how much to pay, I would not be able to deduce the numerical figure from your comment." That's OK, I'm happy to help you with regulation.
- missedthecue 7y ago
  Things like "fair pay" and "living wage" are political talking points. In short, what the living wage is really about is not living standards, or economics, but morality. Its advocates refuse to come to terms with the fact that wages are market price–determined by supply and demand, the same as the price of oil, steel, corn, or coal. And it is for that reason, rather than the practical details, that the broader political movement of which the demand for a living wage is the leading edge is ultimately doomed to failure: For the amorality of the market economy is part of its essence, and cannot be legislated away.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    I think the doom to failure part is due to a scarcity of resources (especially an environment to pollute), which inherently causes distribution issues. If the world had an infinite number of detached single family homes in places with fresh water and secure food supplies and good weather, making things "fair" would be quite easy. We can certainly do better than we currently are, but the underlying reason things aren't fair is that nature doesn't offer fair.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - thatcat 7y ago
    Lol, the price of corn, or even oil, coal, and steel are constantly adjusted by gov. You've proven the opposite of your point - market price is political and can be controlled when it is politically favorable.
    - jnwatson 7y ago
      The government doesn't control the price of corn, oil, coal, or steel except indirectly via government policy.
      - 7y ago
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  >How would the value they create [...] be measured? Even if it could, that value would be so enormous that there are simple economic constraints on what's possible in terms of remuneration. Lot's of people are allocated what are probably criminally small portions of the value they create. For instance, if the sanitation engineers in a city disappeared, you wouldn't want to be in that city 3 months later. The city's streets would be filled with rotting garbage, and that would be the least of it's problems. Its grey- and black- water processing systems would be long since collapsed. And that city'd better hope that no industrial actors took the opportunity to dispense of troublesome pollutants despite the lack of a functioning sanitation system. The thing is, despite the critical importance of the guys running our sanitation systems, and the enormous value the environment they maintain confers on us, in my own city, not one of them makes USD300 grand a year. (Or even USD200 grand. You get the idea.) A lot of civilization collapses without them, but they are still some of the lowest paid professionals in all of engineering. All that's due to the same economic limitations that constrict remuneration for farmworkers. They are absolutely essential. They create enormous value. Unfortunately, the way the system is set up, there is not much in the way of resources to reward them. We can discuss changing the system, but I doubt most people would like the outcome of that exercise. That would definitely go under "Be careful what you wish for."
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    >Lot's of people are allocated what are probably criminally small portions of the value they create. My comment was written to elucidate why "value they create" is a useless sentiment. For example, none of the paintings in Louvre or whatever museum have any value to me. But they do to other people, so it would be impossible to have a consensus on "value". Some people like strawberries and would value them more than people who don't like strawberries. The purpose of paying someone is to perform the desired work. The amount paid is the signal to the person performing the work that the work you want to be done should be done rather than someone else's. The purpose of paying someone is not to provide them with some nebulous concept of value or to make sure they have a minimum standard of housing and fed, etc. Those goals should be accomplished by other means (UBI or some other type of societal welfare system).
munk-a 7y ago
I think their pay being market driven is fair, honestly - the government granting them hazard pay or whatnot will just end up being eaten by the farm owners in the long run - but I do think we need to seriously reconsider privatized healthcare in America - it's insane that yall folks can end up destitute because you get sick.
hitpointdrew 7y ago
No farms, no food.

lotsofpulp 7y ago

How would the value they create or "fair pay" be measured?

groby_b 7y ago
"fair pay" -> well, let's start with "treated like human beings, not chattel", "afforded basic hygiene & health measures", "kept safe in a crisis". From there, we get to "would you die without them? If yes, maybe they're underpaid. Maybe $18K a year just isn't fair pay under any circumstances, not if we can't force people via a "well, you could always die" clause. As for the value they create - you have food available to you. How valuable is that to you? Would you like it if farm workers applied the "well, you could always die or do it yourself" clause? Because at some point, that becomes an option.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  If I were a business owner trying to figure out how much to pay, I would not be able to deduce the numerical figure from your comment. I understand what you're saying, my intention is to display how easy it is to say, but how difficult it is to execute. Currently, we pay people what it costs to replace them, but it would be nice if we could snap our fingers and give everyone a global standard of living equal to whatever the top 5% live in. Unfortunately, that's not possible, and short of a country wide or world wide effort to implement some type of UBI, I don't see much chance of success.
  - groby_b 7y ago
    "If I were a business owner trying to figure out how much to pay, I would not be able to deduce the numerical figure from your comment." That's OK, I'm happy to help you with regulation.
missedthecue 7y ago
Things like "fair pay" and "living wage" are political talking points. In short, what the living wage is really about is not living standards, or economics, but morality. Its advocates refuse to come to terms with the fact that wages are market price–determined by supply and demand, the same as the price of oil, steel, corn, or coal. And it is for that reason, rather than the practical details, that the broader political movement of which the demand for a living wage is the leading edge is ultimately doomed to failure: For the amorality of the market economy is part of its essence, and cannot be legislated away.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  I think the doom to failure part is due to a scarcity of resources (especially an environment to pollute), which inherently causes distribution issues. If the world had an infinite number of detached single family homes in places with fresh water and secure food supplies and good weather, making things "fair" would be quite easy. We can certainly do better than we currently are, but the underlying reason things aren't fair is that nature doesn't offer fair.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- thatcat 7y ago
  Lol, the price of corn, or even oil, coal, and steel are constantly adjusted by gov. You've proven the opposite of your point - market price is political and can be controlled when it is politically favorable.
  - jnwatson 7y ago
    The government doesn't control the price of corn, oil, coal, or steel except indirectly via government policy.
    - 7y ago
bilbo0s 7y ago
>How would the value they create [...] be measured? Even if it could, that value would be so enormous that there are simple economic constraints on what's possible in terms of remuneration. Lot's of people are allocated what are probably criminally small portions of the value they create. For instance, if the sanitation engineers in a city disappeared, you wouldn't want to be in that city 3 months later. The city's streets would be filled with rotting garbage, and that would be the least of it's problems. Its grey- and black- water processing systems would be long since collapsed. And that city'd better hope that no industrial actors took the opportunity to dispense of troublesome pollutants despite the lack of a functioning sanitation system. The thing is, despite the critical importance of the guys running our sanitation systems, and the enormous value the environment they maintain confers on us, in my own city, not one of them makes USD300 grand a year. (Or even USD200 grand. You get the idea.) A lot of civilization collapses without them, but they are still some of the lowest paid professionals in all of engineering. All that's due to the same economic limitations that constrict remuneration for farmworkers. They are absolutely essential. They create enormous value. Unfortunately, the way the system is set up, there is not much in the way of resources to reward them. We can discuss changing the system, but I doubt most people would like the outcome of that exercise. That would definitely go under "Be careful what you wish for."
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  >Lot's of people are allocated what are probably criminally small portions of the value they create. My comment was written to elucidate why "value they create" is a useless sentiment. For example, none of the paintings in Louvre or whatever museum have any value to me. But they do to other people, so it would be impossible to have a consensus on "value". Some people like strawberries and would value them more than people who don't like strawberries. The purpose of paying someone is to perform the desired work. The amount paid is the signal to the person performing the work that the work you want to be done should be done rather than someone else's. The purpose of paying someone is not to provide them with some nebulous concept of value or to make sure they have a minimum standard of housing and fed, etc. Those goals should be accomplished by other means (UBI or some other type of societal welfare system).

munk-a 7y ago

I think their pay being market driven is fair, honestly - the government granting them hazard pay or whatnot will just end up being eaten by the farm owners in the long run - but I do think we need to seriously reconsider privatized healthcare in America - it's insane that yall folks can end up destitute because you get sick.

hitpointdrew 7y ago

No farms, no food.