3 ms·

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 labou

by 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

>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.