3 ms·

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 enoug

by 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
    - strken 5y ago
      Rising wages for the lowest earners are the consequence of more policy changes than just minimum wage increases: subsidised training programs, public infrastructure projects, lowering full employment rate targets for reserve banks, etc. Anything that increases competition for the pool of available workers. I'm not even advocating for any of these things here, or in my earlier comments. I'm saying that if by some unspecified means the wages for last-mile delivery drivers doubled or quadrupled or more, society would absorb the difference instead of collapsing. It wouldn't fail to operate. Even agriculture would be survivable if it happened slowly enough to mitigate the sudden shock.

by strken 5y ago

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
  - strken 5y ago
    Rising wages for the lowest earners are the consequence of more policy changes than just minimum wage increases: subsidised training programs, public infrastructure projects, lowering full employment rate targets for reserve banks, etc. Anything that increases competition for the pool of available workers. I'm not even advocating for any of these things here, or in my earlier comments. I'm saying that if by some unspecified means the wages for last-mile delivery drivers doubled or quadrupled or more, society would absorb the difference instead of collapsing. It wouldn't fail to operate. Even agriculture would be survivable if it happened slowly enough to mitigate the sudden shock.