3 ms·

> Damn near everyone in America, at least, has access to YouTube or other streaming services. I learned how to program in R (...) Enough with this pseudo-moral

> Damn near everyone in America, at least, has access to YouTube or other streaming services. I learned how to program in R (...) Enough with this pseudo-moralistic perpetuation of abuse, specially the tone-deaf ones based on survivorship bias. Just because someone is not able to win the lottery that does not mean they have no right to earn a living wage that allows them a honest living. Aren't we supposed to live in a civilized society? Why are you unwittingly normalizing exploitation and the widespread abuse that bars the majority of families from having a decent life? If not for the parents who can't be self-taught engineers, why not for their children? Are those also expected to endure hardship? Just pay people a fair wage. Is it that hard?

cbozeman 4y ago
> Just pay people a fair wage. Is it that hard? Yes. Because we have no idea how to define 'fair'. I hear 'fair wage' over and over but no one can ever explain to me what makes the wage 'fair' other than, "I have a job and I should be able to live on that single job!" Okay... why? Where is it written that you should be able to live on a single job? As soon as you can come up with an argument that's not emotive, and is instead quantitative, I'll listen. Right now, all I hear from people parroting this is that, "It's not right!"
- greazy 4y ago
  > Okay... why? Where is it written that you should be able to live on a single job? > As soon as you can come up with an argument that's not emotive, and is instead quantitative, I'll listen. I have a feeling that you will not accept any argument based on general morality as you would describe it as 'emotive'. I think first that humans should not spend the majority of their lives working and sleeping. In other words: surviving. Especially when there are more than enough resources available to achieve this ( in your country). Second, exploiting other humans (as above) is absolutely wrong. These two arguments are not emotionally driven.
- arinlen 4y ago
  > Yes. Because we have no idea how to define 'fair'. Well, we do. I mean, we have a pretty solid idea of what represents the absolute bare minimum. For starters, minimum wage should be a living wage. It should be enough all on its own to meet living expenses, including paying for a modest apartment, without breaking any effort rate limit. Is this too hard? Are we supposed to pretend that some people simply do not have a right to have a decent life? > . I hear 'fair wage' over and over but no one can ever explain to me what makes the wage 'fair' other than, "I have a job and I should be able to live on that single job!" Why exactly do you have a hard time understanding this? Look at yourself. Look at the living expenses you have, specially the basic necessities. You pay for the roof over your head, for the food on your plate, for the clothes on your back. Do you have a hard time quantifying that? This is even simpler than that. Landlords and banks already use the concept of effort rate. They already know that if someone's effort rate goes beyond 40% then they are at a significant risk of financial distress. Is it too hard to start from there and determine what's a living wage in any region? Or is there zero lack of interest, and a desire to pull the ladder out of your own feet to screw everyone less fortunate than you?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

cbozeman 4y ago

> Just pay people a fair wage. Is it that hard? Yes. Because we have no idea how to define 'fair'. I hear 'fair wage' over and over but no one can ever explain to me what makes the wage 'fair' other than, "I have a job and I should be able to live on that single job!" Okay... why? Where is it written that you should be able to live on a single job? As soon as you can come up with an argument that's not emotive, and is instead quantitative, I'll listen. Right now, all I hear from people parroting this is that, "It's not right!"

greazy 4y ago
> Okay... why? Where is it written that you should be able to live on a single job? > As soon as you can come up with an argument that's not emotive, and is instead quantitative, I'll listen. I have a feeling that you will not accept any argument based on general morality as you would describe it as 'emotive'. I think first that humans should not spend the majority of their lives working and sleeping. In other words: surviving. Especially when there are more than enough resources available to achieve this ( in your country). Second, exploiting other humans (as above) is absolutely wrong. These two arguments are not emotionally driven.
arinlen 4y ago
> Yes. Because we have no idea how to define 'fair'. Well, we do. I mean, we have a pretty solid idea of what represents the absolute bare minimum. For starters, minimum wage should be a living wage. It should be enough all on its own to meet living expenses, including paying for a modest apartment, without breaking any effort rate limit. Is this too hard? Are we supposed to pretend that some people simply do not have a right to have a decent life? > . I hear 'fair wage' over and over but no one can ever explain to me what makes the wage 'fair' other than, "I have a job and I should be able to live on that single job!" Why exactly do you have a hard time understanding this? Look at yourself. Look at the living expenses you have, specially the basic necessities. You pay for the roof over your head, for the food on your plate, for the clothes on your back. Do you have a hard time quantifying that? This is even simpler than that. Landlords and banks already use the concept of effort rate. They already know that if someone's effort rate goes beyond 40% then they are at a significant risk of financial distress. Is it too hard to start from there and determine what's a living wage in any region? Or is there zero lack of interest, and a desire to pull the ladder out of your own feet to screw everyone less fortunate than you?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]