3 ms·

Would you be willing to pay enough for your "on-demand everything" to provide a living wage to those who enable it?

msmenardi 4y ago
The more you have to pay for it, the fewer people have access to "on-demand everything". Meaning it'll become a luxury of the richer side of the arbitrary cut-off line where ordering groceries or getting an Uber is financially feasible. The less these services cost, the better for all of us. The solution that solves that problem is to remove the infrastructure from the capitalist market - for example, by nationalizing UberEats or Amazon (although nationalization isn't the only option) Doing so would allow the business to continue as usual but the expenses that are external to each transaction would be offloaded to a third party (the government for example, or just written off) thus allowing the maximum amount of people to access the service at the lowest price.
JustSomeNobody 4y ago
As opposed to paying more in taxes to provide a social safety net for those individuals? 6 in one, half dozen in the other.
anonyfox 4y ago
Yes. Getting what you want when you want it does not necessarily mean cheap exploitation. We „only“ need to stop shareholders siphoning money and redirect that wealth back to the workers instead. Worst case the working class would have money to spend, maybe even for other convenience on-demand stuff, recursively. I would be willing to accept a few dozen billionaires being degraded to millionaires as the prize, when in doubt they can protest on the streets against that.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
mixmastamyk 4y ago
Not long ago teens up to twenty or so did this kind of work. Fast food, pizza delivery, etc. The skills-required and profit margins for these jobs aren't the kind to support raising a family on. Everyone knew this and accepted it. Transitioning folks into skilled/good-paying jobs would be better than trying to make service jobs a desired destination.

The more you have to pay for it, the fewer people have access to "on-demand everything". Meaning it'll become a luxury of the richer side of the arbitrary cut-off line where ordering groceries or getting an Uber is financially feasible. The less these services cost, the better for all of us. The solution that solves that problem is to remove the infrastructure from the capitalist market - for example, by nationalizing UberEats or Amazon (although nationalization isn't the only option) Doing so would allow the business to continue as usual but the expenses that are external to each transaction would be offloaded to a third party (the government for example, or just written off) thus allowing the maximum amount of people to access the service at the lowest price.

JustSomeNobody 4y ago

As opposed to paying more in taxes to provide a social safety net for those individuals? 6 in one, half dozen in the other.

anonyfox 4y ago

Yes. Getting what you want when you want it does not necessarily mean cheap exploitation. We „only“ need to stop shareholders siphoning money and redirect that wealth back to the workers instead. Worst case the working class would have money to spend, maybe even for other convenience on-demand stuff, recursively. I would be willing to accept a few dozen billionaires being degraded to millionaires as the prize, when in doubt they can protest on the streets against that.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

mixmastamyk 4y ago

Not long ago teens up to twenty or so did this kind of work. Fast food, pizza delivery, etc. The skills-required and profit margins for these jobs aren't the kind to support raising a family on. Everyone knew this and accepted it. Transitioning folks into skilled/good-paying jobs would be better than trying to make service jobs a desired destination.