4 ms·

Wouldn't my business make more money for my shareholders if most of the labor was framed as meant for low skilled teenagers working random short shifts?

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
You still need to convince someone to take the job. Why is someone who doesn't need that level of flexibility and wants an ordinary full time job going to choose that over Walmart? And if there is an actual reason, why take that option away from someone who is choosing it on purpose?
- Pet_Ant 6y ago
  > Why is someone who doesn't need that level of flexibility and wants an ordinary full time job going to choose that over Walmart? Why are you assuming there are always other jobs available? In the case when there is, I can see your point. But when there are not it's no longer a choice. Sometimes it's better to just things off of the table to make the whole system better. And yeah it does suck for people in unique circumstances. It's really a balancing act that requires nuance and compromise.
  - majormajor 6y ago
    > Why are you assuming there are always other jobs available? In the case when there is, I can see your point. But when there are not it's no longer a choice. Sometimes it's better to just things off of the table to make the whole system better. And yeah it does suck for people in unique circumstances. It's really a balancing act that requires nuance and compromise. If there aren't other jobs available, you haven't made the whole system better. I'm not convinced that a higher level of "no job at all" is a better overall fit for society than "some people drive Uber" given that Uber isn't a particularly exploitive thing in terms of destroying the body or inflexible hours or other problems of the past. It seems like we're trading off a useful form of semi-employment for a greater need for direct redistribution, and I'd rather my redistribution be partially-Uber-shaped and provide at least some features. A world where Uber exists needs a less-high absolute redistributed benefits floor, and results in some more work getting done to people's benefit. The problem is, we just are really bad at providing that base benefits floor, and we're trying to make Uber magically fix that for us.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    If there isn't another better job available, does it really make the system better to take away what many people find to be their best option?

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

You still need to convince someone to take the job. Why is someone who doesn't need that level of flexibility and wants an ordinary full time job going to choose that over Walmart? And if there is an actual reason, why take that option away from someone who is choosing it on purpose?

Pet_Ant 6y ago
> Why is someone who doesn't need that level of flexibility and wants an ordinary full time job going to choose that over Walmart? Why are you assuming there are always other jobs available? In the case when there is, I can see your point. But when there are not it's no longer a choice. Sometimes it's better to just things off of the table to make the whole system better. And yeah it does suck for people in unique circumstances. It's really a balancing act that requires nuance and compromise.
- majormajor 6y ago
  > Why are you assuming there are always other jobs available? In the case when there is, I can see your point. But when there are not it's no longer a choice. Sometimes it's better to just things off of the table to make the whole system better. And yeah it does suck for people in unique circumstances. It's really a balancing act that requires nuance and compromise. If there aren't other jobs available, you haven't made the whole system better. I'm not convinced that a higher level of "no job at all" is a better overall fit for society than "some people drive Uber" given that Uber isn't a particularly exploitive thing in terms of destroying the body or inflexible hours or other problems of the past. It seems like we're trading off a useful form of semi-employment for a greater need for direct redistribution, and I'd rather my redistribution be partially-Uber-shaped and provide at least some features. A world where Uber exists needs a less-high absolute redistributed benefits floor, and results in some more work getting done to people's benefit. The problem is, we just are really bad at providing that base benefits floor, and we're trying to make Uber magically fix that for us.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  If there isn't another better job available, does it really make the system better to take away what many people find to be their best option?