5 ms·
If they are infinitely replaceable, why do they deserve to be protected with higher wages?
by jvmfjvfjvf 4y ago
If they are infinitely replaceable, why do they deserve to be protected with higher wages?
- Cthulhu_ 4y agoDevil's advocate or do you genuinely believe this? It's not so much about being protected with higher wages, it's about being paid a living wage. If capitalism tells people their job is not worthwhile, it has failed. This is especially applicable for creative work.
- dcow 4y agoCapitalism pays market rate not a living wage.
- basscomm 4y agoIs it acceptable to drive the market rate to below a living wage?
- dcow 4y agoIf it isn’t then raise minimum wage and make immigrants pay taxes. I do believe if you work an honest full time job you should be able to live outside of poverty. Does that include a 5k/mo apartment and Starbucks every day?
- alxlaz 4y agoStrikes are, historically, one of the means through which governments pretty much everywhere (including the US) was pressured to introduce, and then adjust, minimum wage. (inb4 smug citation needed see, for example, the Lawrence textile strike, and the ensuing consequence in S. Doc. No. 870, 62nd Cong., 2nd Sess., at 9 (1912), reprinted in Serial Set Vol. No. 6170, or really just search for "strike" and "minimum wage" in your favourite library of actual history books) The invisible hand of the market is, sadly, unable to write bills or increase pay, and since management can't see it -- unsurprising, given that it's invisible, it's right in the name -- they sometimes need to have it spelled it out for them.
- dcow 4y agoI'm not anti strikes or labor unions or whatnot. In fact I'd love to see the minimum wage for individuals with dependents be raised to something most people would think is uncomfortably high and let society deal with the fallout.
- bigbillheck 4y agoCapitalism would use slaves if it were legal.
- yellowapple 4y agoCapitalism does use slaves and they are legal; see also: the American prison system.
- oaiey 4y agoBecause people deserve a livable wage. If it is a full time job, it needs to be paid good enough to eat, live and have shelter. Everything else is a hobby (and considering another comment, that is even true for some). It is that simple. Humans are not Resources.
- lotsofpulp 4y agoIt can be useful to model the same thing with different viewpoints for different purposes. For the purposes of ensuring a healthy, long term society, humans are not only resources. For the purposes of properly allocating a society’s resources (which is also in the interest of a healthy, long term society), humans’ labor is a resource, which can be shortened to humans as resources.
- jvmfjvfjvf 4y agoWhy should a publishing company be forced to pay them a living wage in the most expensive city in America?
- robinsoncrus0e 4y agoBecause they require them to live in the most expensive city in America?
- dcow 4y agoWho does this?
- robinsoncrus0e 4y agoHarper Collins and the rest of the big five require editorial/marketing/publicity assistant positions to be at least hybrid in Manhattan
- dcow 4y agoBut you aren’t forced to live in Manhattan. And I thought we were talking about book cover artists?
- __MatrixMan__ 4y agoBecause a society full of desperate people is less productive and more expensive to maintain than its alternatives. It's not about deserving, it's just pragmatic.
- dcow 4y agoCitation needed. I’d think it would be more productive to keep people a little desperate, sadly.
- __MatrixMan__ 4y agoSadly, I don't have that citation. It'll take time for data from UBI efforts to accumulate. Still I believe that more than 75% of human effort is currently spent on zerosum games, keeping the riffraff in their place and jockeying for position among ourselves. If we could flip that so that 75% was spent on non-zerosum games, we could work half as hard and still have more.
- jvmfjvfjvf 4y agoThere are an infinite number of people who want to live in Manhattan too. Should every company be forced to pay them living wages to live there too?
- tremon 4y agoSince there's a finite (and countable) number of people alive, that statement is obviously hyperbole. But... why not?
- __MatrixMan__ 4y agoIt's not about "should", it's about whether or not the people can compel them to do so. It's probably in the people's best interest to be a bit less ambitious than "pay for an infinite number of people", since that's unlikely to happen regardless of how compliant the companies are.
- yamtaddle 4y agoWhat does "deserve" have to do with our system?