2 ms·

I think a better phrasing is "I know you don't want to dig shit and I don't want to dig shit but there's someone out there willing to do it if I offer them enou

I think a better phrasing is "I know you don't want to dig shit and I don't want to dig shit but there's someone out there willing to do it if I offer them enough money". Offering money in exchange for work is the better, fairer option because no one has to take the job if they don't want it. Offer enough money and someone will value the pay more than their dislike for digging shit. The problem with such a system is when other things get distorted through monopolies or collusion that result in an unfair market or limited choices. It's a classic baby-bathwater situation, keep paid jobs but get rid of market distorting factors.

marginalia_nu 4y ago
> no one has to take the job if they don't want it Is that true though? Won't the vacant jobs tend to be specifically the jobs nobody wants to do, so that those do the jobs are those who do so out of sheer desperation? This especially given increasing automation and fewer job opportunities (where most human labor isn't doing anything machines can't do cheaper). I don't think monopolies and collusion is causing this.
Llamamoe 4y ago
This is a naive take. People doing those jobs right now are definitely not paid much, they just have no freedom, for many it's either an abysmal job or homelessness. And you speak of unfair practices as though they're not the very definition of what capitalism as a system incentives.