5 ms·
We are not pretending it's a tip, we're acknowledging the reality that these workers are exploited and attempting to ensure they can make a living. This can be
by gilrain 6y ago
We are not pretending it's a tip, we're acknowledging the reality that these workers are exploited and attempting to ensure they can make a living. This can be at the same time as we try to pressure companies to do right by their employees, or government to force them to.
- pmiller2 6y ago> we're acknowledging the reality that these workers are exploited So, we're acknowledging... capitalism? Getting rid of tipping isn't the answer. Getting rid of capitalism is.
- johnday 6y agoCapitalism and regulation can coexist.
- pmiller2 6y agoRegulation won't get rid of the exploitation. Capitalism is the source of it.
- johnday 6y agoI think I can safely say that I disagree with both of those claims (speaking as someone who's no fan of capitalism). Unless by "get rid" you mean "completely eradicate", which is not feasible under any system.
- pgayed 6y agoCapitalism is an emergent phenomenon. It is not “instituted” or enforced by any party or organization, though its practice may be supported or suppressed by them. It is the naturalᵃ consequence of private exchange. So long as two, consenting parties—who are never symmetrically informed—engage in nonbroadcast (“private”) transactions, you have capitalism. __________ ᵃ By “natural” I only mean determined.
- pmiller2 6y agoCapitalism needs a puissant state to enforce property rights, at the very minimum. Without private property, you don't have capitalism. However, small scale barter is not the problem. Capitalism at scale is the problem, and that can certainly be torn down ("suppressed," in your terms). As for private exchange, let's just not have private property, shall we?
- pgayed 6y agoYou don’t need a state to enforce property rights. Humans do that all their own. Humans defend—and invade—land they wish to occupy. If such notions as private property emerge, I reckon it’s because the benefits of the idea are greater than the blood costs of defense. It’s wishful thinking descendants of families who died over, negotiated, settled and established a history in a particular terrain—no matter how unfairly acquired—will relinquish it without force. What makes the family homestead valuable are the costs incurred to keep it.
- pmiller2 6y agoThen what prevents me from coming and making a "private exchange" of your life for your stuff? I dig a deep hole somewhere. I incurred significant costs to do so. Is that hole now valuable?
- pgayed 6y ago> a "private exchange" of your life for your stuff? What stops you from attempting that now? Consequences. You're assuming you would not also be putting your life at risk attempting to do so? (I'm not talking about state enforcement or punishment. We are all free to protect ourselves.) As for your "deep hole", note I said the homestead is valuable because of the costs incurred to _keep_ it.