3 ms·
> Except it does...? These things are relative to one another. The way you present your case that we are all underpaid is very absolutist and lacks the nuance
by ravenstine 5y ago
> Except it does...?
These things are relative to one another. The way you present your case that we are all underpaid is very absolutist and lacks the nuance that someone can be underpaid in the grand scheme but overpaid at a smaller scale.
> The reason we're paid middle class wages (unlike, say, teachers) is because:
I don't really have the time to adequately address every one of those reasons, so all I have to say is that if economics were that straight forward and honest then we'd have a lot more millionaires and billionaires. At best, reason B is true absent any sort of incompetence or meaningful quality-control around production. When you consider how the revenue of many companies is not tightly coupled with productivity and profits, your perspective doesn't seem to add up.
- pydry 5y ago>These things are relative to one another. The way you present your case that we are all underpaid is very absolutist I didn't really disagree that "underpaid/overpaid is relative", I just used a different default frame of reference to you. One that made you angry I guess? > and lacks the nuance that someone can be underpaid in the grand scheme but overpaid at a smaller scale. This point sounds horribly confused to me. Earlier you said we are all vastly overpaid. Now we are both underpaid and overpaid? Depending on the scale of... something? >I don't really have the time to adequately address every one of those reasons, so all I have to say is that if economics were that straight forward and honest then we'd have a lot more millionaires and billionaires. I really have no idea what you're getting at here. It doesn't make any sense to me.
- ravenstine 5y agoNah, I wasn't angry. In any case, I may have just misunderstood you.