3 ms·

> It's par for the course in capitalism. If this isn't a defense then what is the point of adding this? We are aware it's par for the course. But "controlling

by raydev 5y ago

> It's par for the course in capitalism. If this isn't a defense then what is the point of adding this? We are aware it's par for the course. But "controlling costs" doesn't necessarily mean "paying the absolute minimum of what the market will bear." That thinking may as well belong to a cartoon negligent fool, one who ignores the impacts of their actions simply because those impacts are not immediately obvious to them.

P_I_Staker 5y ago
Hey, I don't expect this to get read, but I wanted to respond. It's important to understand what we're working with here. The reality is that businesses don't just pay people because they need the money to support themselves. They don't see underpaying employees as a "problem", not necessarily at least. So they're not carefully accounting for their employees personal needs so they can provide sufficient pay. That's probably not going to change, at least not much. There's other things that can change. OP: > @employers of HN: Compare your wages with the cost of living in the location you expect your employers to be. Ensure that their rent plus fixed expenses is at most a third of their wage, and ensure that they need to work at most 40 hours a week to earn that. If you do not meet that standard, you are underpaying your employees > That sounds all nice but why would they do that when they can find people who accept to work longer for less? > Because not everyone thinks like Gordon Gecko. Simply reducing the players to cartoon characters that think greed is good doesn't help the problem. I'm not defending our current system, I think that we need to change policies, tax incentives, minimum wage, and real estate policy. I'm also wary of wealth disparity among management and executives, but am even more pessimistic there. I don't think expecting corporations to be altruistic or else calling them villains, fools ect. is the answer. At the end of the day they're concerned that they will get out competed, or about their responsibility to shareholders, and that's how budgets get set. Saying "come on, have a heart" doesn't help.

by raydev 5y ago

P_I_Staker 5y ago

Hey, I don't expect this to get read, but I wanted to respond. It's important to understand what we're working with here. The reality is that businesses don't just pay people because they need the money to support themselves. They don't see underpaying employees as a "problem", not necessarily at least. So they're not carefully accounting for their employees personal needs so they can provide sufficient pay. That's probably not going to change, at least not much. There's other things that can change. OP: > @employers of HN: Compare your wages with the cost of living in the location you expect your employers to be. Ensure that their rent plus fixed expenses is at most a third of their wage, and ensure that they need to work at most 40 hours a week to earn that. If you do not meet that standard, you are underpaying your employees > That sounds all nice but why would they do that when they can find people who accept to work longer for less? > Because not everyone thinks like Gordon Gecko. Simply reducing the players to cartoon characters that think greed is good doesn't help the problem. I'm not defending our current system, I think that we need to change policies, tax incentives, minimum wage, and real estate policy. I'm also wary of wealth disparity among management and executives, but am even more pessimistic there. I don't think expecting corporations to be altruistic or else calling them villains, fools ect. is the answer. At the end of the day they're concerned that they will get out competed, or about their responsibility to shareholders, and that's how budgets get set. Saying "come on, have a heart" doesn't help.