5 ms·

Plenty of blue collar jobs pay enough to live comfortably

by treis 5y ago

whatshisface 5y ago
A society consisting exclusively of highly specialized welders and accountants can't operate either. We do actually need someone to deliver packages for example. The jobs that don't pay a living wage are oftentimes more essential than some that do.
- strken 5y ago
  Do we need someone to deliver packages? If last mile package delivery was a skilled profession that earned workers $200k a year, more people would choose to walk/drive/bus to the depot. There's no point streamlining a process at a cost of e.g. $35k/year if you can pay someone $30k/year to do it.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >Do we need someone to deliver packages? If last mile package delivery was a skilled profession that earned workers $200k a year, more people would choose to walk/drive/bus to the depot. Do we need someone to farm food for us? If farming was a skilled profession that earned workers $200k a year, more people would choose to grow their own vegetable garden.
    - tibbar 5y ago
      And then you might decide to pay some one to help you in your vegetable garden part time, and before you know it...
    - strken 5y ago
      The point here is that jobs are elastic and can be automated or shuffled around, we just choose not to do so because we don't value the time of the worker enough. When you get a package delivered for $2 instead of $3 you're implicitly putting a lower value on the time of someone else. We will always need someone to deliver packages. However, maybe we do not need someone to deliver a package of rice from Amazon for an unlivably low wage to a recipient who could have just gone to the supermarket. The same thing applies to the agricultural industry, which abuses immigrant labourers doing backbreaking work for low pay to provide you cheaper luxury goods. Maybe if strawberries reflected a livable wage you'd choose to eat more easily harvestable crops, like apples.
      - gruez 5y ago
        >we just choose not to do so because we don't value the time of the worker enough. When you get a package delivered for $2 instead of $3 you're implicitly putting a lower value on the time of someone else. Is that bad? Like it or not, different types of work provide different value to the economy. >maybe we do not need someone to deliver a package of rice from Amazon for an unlivably low wage to a recipient who could have just gone to the supermarket. Sure, that MANGA programmer could have gone to the supermarket himself, but why should we stop him from spreading the wealth around by paying someone else to do it for them? Would the delivery guy be better off if he had 20 minutes of his time back but was $5 poorer?
        strken 5y ago
        It's a reply to the claim that "a society consisting exclusively of highly specialized welders and accountants can't operate." I don't think it's bad that labour has a market value, but I do think it's bad that we can't imagine a future where most or all of the jobs are higher paid. Again, this isn't an attempt to dunk on anyone who gets a package delivered. It's a defence of the market's ability to stretch to accommodate rising wages in a sector, and an attack on the idea that a low-paid underclass is necessary.
        gruez 5y ago
        >It's a defence of the market's ability to stretch to accommodate rising wages in a sector I don't see how this can be solved by the market. At the marginal level, raising wages can do a little to push the income of the lowest earners slightly higher, but it's not really a solution to the general problem of "people who can't earn enough money to afford some minimum standard of living". For one, it actually doesn't increase overall earnings, because businesses end up cutting hours[1]. Second, it only affects people who are employed, so the policy does nothing for the unemployed/disabled. If society wants to guarantee a minimum standard of living to their members, they should just do it (ie. redistributive policies), rather than trying to coerce the labor market into doing so. [1] https://www.nber.org/papers/w23532 https://www.nber.org/papers/w23532
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    If people are walking to the depot, the delivery work is still being done, but for $0/hour.
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  "The jobs that don't pay a living wage are oftentimes more essential than some that do" Which was said before quite often, but still many people were surprised what qualified as a critical job - and what not, during the covid lockdowns. And the shame is - the pay is still low for most of lowly regarded but critical work.
  - _carbyau_ 5y ago
    Criticality is not the only factor when it comes to pay. Supply of capable people also plays a part. IE city garbage collection is critical, but finding staff to do it isn't too hard. For me, when the salary/wage falls below living standards is the issue. Hence minimum wage should be a thing.
  - TapWaterBandit 5y ago
    > Which was said before quite often, but still many people were surprised what qualified as a critical job - and what not, during the covid lockdowns. And also what was considered to be a "non-critical" job, often by the workers themselves. Pre-covid I don't think anyone would've predicted teachers standing up as a collective and saying "We are not essential!". But this was pretty much the case globally and I think it will have long-term impacts on the field.
    - citizenpaul 5y ago
      Problem with teachers is that they are critical but there is about a 18 year gap in seeing the failure
  - citizenpaul 5y ago
    Thats the funny thing about critical work. It pretty much has to become commoditized in order to be common enough to be critical Therefore it ends up in a cycle of depressed wages with no way back up.

Plenty of blue collar jobs pay enough to live comfortably

by treis 5y ago

Plenty of blue collar jobs pay enough to live comfortably

A society consisting exclusively of highly specialized welders and accountants can't operate either. We do actually need someone to deliver packages for example. The jobs that don't pay a living wage are oftentimes more essential than some that do.

strken 5y ago
Do we need someone to deliver packages? If last mile package delivery was a skilled profession that earned workers $200k a year, more people would choose to walk/drive/bus to the depot. There's no point streamlining a process at a cost of e.g. $35k/year if you can pay someone $30k/year to do it.
- gruez 5y ago
  >Do we need someone to deliver packages? If last mile package delivery was a skilled profession that earned workers $200k a year, more people would choose to walk/drive/bus to the depot. Do we need someone to farm food for us? If farming was a skilled profession that earned workers $200k a year, more people would choose to grow their own vegetable garden.
  - tibbar 5y ago
    And then you might decide to pay some one to help you in your vegetable garden part time, and before you know it...
  - strken 5y ago
    The point here is that jobs are elastic and can be automated or shuffled around, we just choose not to do so because we don't value the time of the worker enough. When you get a package delivered for $2 instead of $3 you're implicitly putting a lower value on the time of someone else. We will always need someone to deliver packages. However, maybe we do not need someone to deliver a package of rice from Amazon for an unlivably low wage to a recipient who could have just gone to the supermarket. The same thing applies to the agricultural industry, which abuses immigrant labourers doing backbreaking work for low pay to provide you cheaper luxury goods. Maybe if strawberries reflected a livable wage you'd choose to eat more easily harvestable crops, like apples.
    - gruez 5y ago
      >we just choose not to do so because we don't value the time of the worker enough. When you get a package delivered for $2 instead of $3 you're implicitly putting a lower value on the time of someone else. Is that bad? Like it or not, different types of work provide different value to the economy. >maybe we do not need someone to deliver a package of rice from Amazon for an unlivably low wage to a recipient who could have just gone to the supermarket. Sure, that MANGA programmer could have gone to the supermarket himself, but why should we stop him from spreading the wealth around by paying someone else to do it for them? Would the delivery guy be better off if he had 20 minutes of his time back but was $5 poorer?
      - strken 5y ago
        It's a reply to the claim that "a society consisting exclusively of highly specialized welders and accountants can't operate." I don't think it's bad that labour has a market value, but I do think it's bad that we can't imagine a future where most or all of the jobs are higher paid. Again, this isn't an attempt to dunk on anyone who gets a package delivered. It's a defence of the market's ability to stretch to accommodate rising wages in a sector, and an attack on the idea that a low-paid underclass is necessary.
        gruez 5y ago
        >It's a defence of the market's ability to stretch to accommodate rising wages in a sector I don't see how this can be solved by the market. At the marginal level, raising wages can do a little to push the income of the lowest earners slightly higher, but it's not really a solution to the general problem of "people who can't earn enough money to afford some minimum standard of living". For one, it actually doesn't increase overall earnings, because businesses end up cutting hours[1]. Second, it only affects people who are employed, so the policy does nothing for the unemployed/disabled. If society wants to guarantee a minimum standard of living to their members, they should just do it (ie. redistributive policies), rather than trying to coerce the labor market into doing so. [1] https://www.nber.org/papers/w23532 https://www.nber.org/papers/w23532
- whatshisface 5y ago
  If people are walking to the depot, the delivery work is still being done, but for $0/hour.
hutzlibu 5y ago
"The jobs that don't pay a living wage are oftentimes more essential than some that do" Which was said before quite often, but still many people were surprised what qualified as a critical job - and what not, during the covid lockdowns. And the shame is - the pay is still low for most of lowly regarded but critical work.
- _carbyau_ 5y ago
  Criticality is not the only factor when it comes to pay. Supply of capable people also plays a part. IE city garbage collection is critical, but finding staff to do it isn't too hard. For me, when the salary/wage falls below living standards is the issue. Hence minimum wage should be a thing.
- TapWaterBandit 5y ago
  > Which was said before quite often, but still many people were surprised what qualified as a critical job - and what not, during the covid lockdowns. And also what was considered to be a "non-critical" job, often by the workers themselves. Pre-covid I don't think anyone would've predicted teachers standing up as a collective and saying "We are not essential!". But this was pretty much the case globally and I think it will have long-term impacts on the field.
  - citizenpaul 5y ago
    Problem with teachers is that they are critical but there is about a 18 year gap in seeing the failure
- citizenpaul 5y ago
  Thats the funny thing about critical work. It pretty much has to become commoditized in order to be common enough to be critical Therefore it ends up in a cycle of depressed wages with no way back up.