3 ms·

>Are you asserting that all those people are incapable of determining what is best for them? If you give somebody a choice between working a little bit and not

>Are you asserting that all those people are incapable of determining what is best for them? If you give somebody a choice between working a little bit and not having a job at all, most people will take the little bit of work they're offered. The "people continue to take these jobs" argument is only valid if there's an abundance of other jobs available, which there is not. Whether or not a job is underpaid is not determined by whether or not somebody is willing to do it for that amount of money. If people aren't being paid a living wage, they're being underpaid, and their wages will have to be subsidized by social assistance programs if their basic needs are going to be met.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> If you give somebody a choice between working a little bit and not having a job at all, most people will take the little bit of work they're offered. The "people continue to take these jobs" argument is only valid if there's an abundance of other jobs available, which there is not. Prior to the coronavirus, unemployment in the US was at historic lows. That is likely to return rather swiftly once there is no longer a pandemic suppressing economic activity, especially given the amount of stimulus being applied. So there apparently are other jobs available in general, since most everybody has one (and only a very small percentage of those are working for Uber). > Whether or not a job is underpaid is not determined by whether or not somebody is willing to do it for that amount of money. If people aren't being paid a living wage, they're being underpaid, and their wages will have to be subsidized by social assistance programs if their basic needs are going to be met. They also have to be subsidized if they're unemployed, right? That appears to be the major flaw in your argument. If there are other jobs available then they have other options and are choosing this for a reason (e.g. flexibility), but if there aren't then the alternative, if this work disappears because it can't justify higher compensation, is unemployment. Which is both worse for the worker and requires even more subsidy from the taxpayer. So either way it's better that more flexible but lower paying work be available.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

> If you give somebody a choice between working a little bit and not having a job at all, most people will take the little bit of work they're offered. The "people continue to take these jobs" argument is only valid if there's an abundance of other jobs available, which there is not. Prior to the coronavirus, unemployment in the US was at historic lows. That is likely to return rather swiftly once there is no longer a pandemic suppressing economic activity, especially given the amount of stimulus being applied. So there apparently are other jobs available in general, since most everybody has one (and only a very small percentage of those are working for Uber). > Whether or not a job is underpaid is not determined by whether or not somebody is willing to do it for that amount of money. If people aren't being paid a living wage, they're being underpaid, and their wages will have to be subsidized by social assistance programs if their basic needs are going to be met. They also have to be subsidized if they're unemployed, right? That appears to be the major flaw in your argument. If there are other jobs available then they have other options and are choosing this for a reason (e.g. flexibility), but if there aren't then the alternative, if this work disappears because it can't justify higher compensation, is unemployment. Which is both worse for the worker and requires even more subsidy from the taxpayer. So either way it's better that more flexible but lower paying work be available.