3 ms·

> You can go work for a company that permits discussion of salaries? Its illegal for the company to prevent you, but that doesn't help any employee who doesn't

> You can go work for a company that permits discussion of salaries? Its illegal for the company to prevent you, but that doesn't help any employee who doesn't know this fact. Also, that is kinda the whole point of the anti-work movement, to stop working for companies that abuse you. >And if no such company exists, you can start one. I think you have an imperfect view of the situation given you likely work somewhere that pays you enough you have spare money left over to save up a rainy day fund. This movement isn't for you, and you should step out of the way. Min wage workers don't have a rainy day fund, they don't have any money left over to put into a savings account, they can't even handle missing a single day of work without one of their bills being paid late, all while working a class of jobs that rarely has paid sick time, almost never has vacation, and no union to keep you from being fired for arbitrary or made up reasons. How da fuck do you expect them to start a company? Its hard enough for them to handle the expense of changing jobs just from the one or two extra days between paychecks because they pay out on a different day.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
That narrative of "poor people are so helpless, they have no chances at all, their only hope is socialism to rescue them" doesn't really convince me. Surely at least you can send out some applications from your phone on your daily 2 hour commute to work. It can be really cheap to start a company. You could offer to help your antiwork colleagues to find better jobs, for example. Bam, you have a company.
- MrStonedOne 5y ago
  Calling setting min wage to be enough that you can have a savings account and have the financial freedom to move jobs "socialism" is premium intellectual dishonesty. If the min wage is socialism then call me a socialist because thats not an argument you'll win with here
  - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    You people simply have it backwards. You truly seem to believe of the alternatives of somebody offering a job for 2$/h and no job, offering no job is the better alternative. When in reality you could simply not take the 2$/h job and be in the same situation as if there was no job. The living wage theory is a completely moronic idea, because why should anybody who needs a job done have to pay for somebody else's whole life expenses? That makes zero sense and just makes it more difficult to offer jobs. Like suppose you need somebody to paint your living room. Should you have to pay their whole living expenses to do that? How does that make sense? It is just a job. Minimum wages only hit the poorest people who can't get jobs anymore. And the first victims will not even show up in the joblessness statistics, because they will be people who earned an extra income to their pension or student allowance. The only proper solution is to increase demand for jobs. If you are desperate to find somebody to paint your living room, you will raise your rates to get the job done.
- MrStonedOne 5y ago
  On another note, While I get that you don't see how more income leads to more ability to job hunt for a better job, I would like to ask why you think it is that when people got stimulus checks they started leaving their current wage slave job for better ones in droves? There is still a labor shortage, where did you think it came from? Unemployment benefits don't apply to people who quit, or were fired for cause, and for most people out of work from the pandemic days, they are fully exhausted, and have been since the first week of sept when the federal """handout""" ended. Nobody who didn't lose their job this calendar year still has employment benefits. Yet there is still a labor shortage for bottom rung jobs? Its almost like a bunch of people now having the means to eat the cost of job hopping did their job hopping and are working better jobs. Now lets look at about why that might be... >Surely at least you can send out some applications from your phone on your daily 2 hour commute to work. Doesn't matter if you can't afford to take the job. This is what people who haven't been poor recently don't understand... If you can not afford to have your first paycheck delayed by a week to 3 weeks without either running out of gas or bus money to get to work(!), or ending up past the final date (!!) on a utility bill or rent bill, why would you waste your time applying to jobs?
  - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    That's just nonsense. How many people are in that situation? You can borrow money to bridge the three weeks, for example. And what happens to such people if they get fired, which presumably happens all the time? I think you are talking about imaginary situations that don't actually reflect reality. If people were able to find better jobs, that is exactly the solution I propose.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago

That narrative of "poor people are so helpless, they have no chances at all, their only hope is socialism to rescue them" doesn't really convince me. Surely at least you can send out some applications from your phone on your daily 2 hour commute to work. It can be really cheap to start a company. You could offer to help your antiwork colleagues to find better jobs, for example. Bam, you have a company.

MrStonedOne 5y ago
Calling setting min wage to be enough that you can have a savings account and have the financial freedom to move jobs "socialism" is premium intellectual dishonesty. If the min wage is socialism then call me a socialist because thats not an argument you'll win with here
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  You people simply have it backwards. You truly seem to believe of the alternatives of somebody offering a job for 2$/h and no job, offering no job is the better alternative. When in reality you could simply not take the 2$/h job and be in the same situation as if there was no job. The living wage theory is a completely moronic idea, because why should anybody who needs a job done have to pay for somebody else's whole life expenses? That makes zero sense and just makes it more difficult to offer jobs. Like suppose you need somebody to paint your living room. Should you have to pay their whole living expenses to do that? How does that make sense? It is just a job. Minimum wages only hit the poorest people who can't get jobs anymore. And the first victims will not even show up in the joblessness statistics, because they will be people who earned an extra income to their pension or student allowance. The only proper solution is to increase demand for jobs. If you are desperate to find somebody to paint your living room, you will raise your rates to get the job done.
MrStonedOne 5y ago
On another note, While I get that you don't see how more income leads to more ability to job hunt for a better job, I would like to ask why you think it is that when people got stimulus checks they started leaving their current wage slave job for better ones in droves? There is still a labor shortage, where did you think it came from? Unemployment benefits don't apply to people who quit, or were fired for cause, and for most people out of work from the pandemic days, they are fully exhausted, and have been since the first week of sept when the federal """handout""" ended. Nobody who didn't lose their job this calendar year still has employment benefits. Yet there is still a labor shortage for bottom rung jobs? Its almost like a bunch of people now having the means to eat the cost of job hopping did their job hopping and are working better jobs. Now lets look at about why that might be... >Surely at least you can send out some applications from your phone on your daily 2 hour commute to work. Doesn't matter if you can't afford to take the job. This is what people who haven't been poor recently don't understand... If you can not afford to have your first paycheck delayed by a week to 3 weeks without either running out of gas or bus money to get to work(!), or ending up past the final date (!!) on a utility bill or rent bill, why would you waste your time applying to jobs?
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  That's just nonsense. How many people are in that situation? You can borrow money to bridge the three weeks, for example. And what happens to such people if they get fired, which presumably happens all the time? I think you are talking about imaginary situations that don't actually reflect reality. If people were able to find better jobs, that is exactly the solution I propose.