9 ms·
Stuff like this always comes to mind when the media celebrates the richest people in the world. This often comes at the expense of low level employees who do da
by spaetzleesser 6y ago
Stuff like this always comes to mind when the media celebrates the richest people in the world. This often comes at the expense of low level employees who do dangerous and underpaid work so a few guys can become very rich. And the worse they treat these employees the more the rich guys get celebrated.
That’s why the slogan “run the government like a business” doesn’t work. It would mean to ignore the weakest in society (maybe lay them off?) for the benefit of a few at the top.
- Chris2048 6y ago> who do dangerous and underpaid work so a few guys can become very rich If it's underpaid, why do it? If you do it, what makes it "under" paid? By taking the job, you confirm the wage is right.
- comrh 6y agoThis naively assumes the person has a choice of other opportunities and that the those other jobs aren't also underpaid.
- charlesu 6y agoBecause the alternative is to starve? You can take advantage of people when they’re in dire straits. That’s not indicative of some greater truth about the price of labor but a fact of exploitation.
- Chris2048 6y agoSo someone offers a job at a poor rate, and it's "exploitation". Then what are you and me, who didn't even offer a rate? If they would've literally starved without the offer, it literally saved their life. If a persons situation is not made worse by a job offer, then what's the problem? They would've still been worse off without it.
- JulianTapales 6y agoJust because they would be better off with it doesn’t mean it’s not exploitative. The problem is the lack of non exploitative alternatives. You can argue a life of exploitation is better than starving to death but I’d say even that is up for debate.
- nickpp 6y agoNo, the alternative is another job.
- pietrovismara 6y agoNo. This is a blatant lie that keeps being repeated without thought. The reason people work at amazon warehouses is because they don't have other choice. For many there simply are no other jobs that pay or treat you better.
- nickpp 6y agoThen the alternative was better education and more focus during one's formative years. It's not my fault the kids skipping class, having fun and making jokes during teacher's lessons are now paid less than me. Society offers plenty of opportunities but not to people who did noting to prepare themselves to take advantage of them.
- pietrovismara 6y agoIf it really is just a matter of the effort one puts into education, then answer this. If everyone studied with the same exact amount of effort, would we have a world without waitresses, warehouse workers, low wage jobs? Obviously not. This society relies entirely on the fact that a good portion of the population can be blackmailed into doing the bad jobs, while the other small portion enjoys the fruits. If nobody could be forced to take shitty jobs, how would most of the current industries exist?
- bena 6y agoI don't like that thinking. It ignores radical power imbalances. If I, or a group I'm a part of, controls the majority of the resources, we get to decide allocation of those resources without regard to any other consideration than what we would part with. So if you go to an area with high unemployment where the businesses only offer at most $5/hr, you can also offer $5/hr even for jobs critical to your business.
- Chris2048 6y agoWhat kind of power balance, specifically. If you offer $5/hr where max rate is $5/hr the area isn't any worse off.
- JulianTapales 6y agoIf $5/hr is an exploitative rate, then it's exploitation regardless of whether the the area is worse off or not
- Chris2048 6y agoIf the rate $5/hr is inherently exploitative, then how can a person not capable of producing more than $5/hr of value ever be employed?
- bena 6y agoNo one is saying it's inherently exploitative. Or at the very least, I'm not. It can be exploitative because if the other jobs in the area are inherently worth $X/hr (because they provide about that value to the company), then you can get away with paying $X/hr in that area even if the job is inherently worth significantly more (because it provides more value to the company).
- hntrader 6y ago"because it provides more value to the company" This is the basis of literally every transaction. If you buy bread for $2, you do so because it has subject value if $2.5. If the bread cost $2.51, you wouldn't buy it. If you hire someone for $13/hour, you do so because you're willing to pay $11/hour and you've gotten $2/hour of benefit on top. There's zero transactions anywhere where the value to the company (or individual) isn't higher than what they're paying for it.
- i_haz_rabies 6y agoThis is the sort of thinking that erodes the ground underneath society.
- capableweb 6y agoProgrammers say things like "By taking the job, you confirm the wage is right." and then wonder why everyone thinks programmers are emotionally cold. Yes, by pure math and market economics, I guess you might be right. But by hearth, I'm sure even you realize that it's not that black and white in reality.
- Chris2048 6y agoIf it's not that black and white, why not explain how rather than invoking negative programmer stereotypes?
- pietrovismara 6y agoI'm sorry for breaking the rules by being rude, but I find your kind of argument so lazy and malignant to be more offensive than any vulgarity. In short, you just have to get your head out of your ass and see how the majority of people are living today, even in first world countries.
- Chris2048 6y agoSo why not make a substantial post on the topic, rather that name-calling? I consider that pretty lazy.
- pietrovismara 6y agoWhen you have several users all brigading with the same propaganda (on the lines of "you always have a choice, ayn rand is my hero!") as if it was an undeniable truth, I have to face that. It's unavoidable, and not name calling. I precisely wrote about the argument, not the user.
- renewiltord 6y agoThe answer is exactly what you (likely) suspect: * Most labour isn't high value * Western workers have an expectation of a high standard of living that grew out of post-War economic expansion * Employer/Employee relations are asymmetric: the former has greater market power to influence pricing than the latter * Fairness in human relations is an independent notion from the economic clearing price, cf. The Dictator Game * The most effective techniques at causing change involve at least some appeals to emotion or outrage Put this together and you'll get this thread.
- antihero 6y agoBecause you are desperate and need to pay rent and eat. This is how exploitation worked. If everyone was economically free enough, Amazon managers would be laughed all the way to the door.
- reaperducer 6y agoBy taking the job, you confirm the wage is right. I see you've never been poor. I have. Sometimes you take any job, no matter the wage, just to keep the wolves at bay and food on the table.
- donovanian 6y ago> It would mean to ignore the weakest in society (maybe lay them off?) for the benefit of a few at the top. As though almost all the unprecedented levels of pandemic relief in the US haven’t gone to anything but people that need relief.
- xmprt 6y agoA lot of the early pandemic relief went to large corporations looking for cheap loans.
- reaperducer 6y agoFortunately, a lot of them were publicly shamed into giving it back. Meanwhile, hundreds of billions of dollars went to people making less than $75,000 a year. Seems like a good chunk of the relief went to those most likely to need it.
- donovanian 6y agoThe bills passed claim they're for "relief", but if you examine the contents much of the spending doesn't even occur this year. > Only about 5 percent of that total is funding public health efforts related to the pandemic, according to the nonpartisan number crunchers at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB).