4 ms·
The idea that all jobs should provide enough compensation to live off of is just not possible. Face it now or later, but a charade which requires financial sup
by stcroixx 4y ago
The idea that all jobs should provide enough compensation to live off of is just not possible. Face it now or later, but a charade which requires financial support will eventually crumble.
- nivenkos 4y agoWhat is the alternative? They should do, or they should be automated so you don't need as many employees.
- ghaff 4y agoOr, as many Silicon Valley startups have shown, there are lots of services that people want but it turns out that a critical mass of mainstream consumers aren't willing to pay the cost of providing them.
- brookst 4y agoAre you suggesting a massive expansion of government assistance or of homelessness? I don’t see a fourth option.
- stcroixx 4y agoI’d suggest simply reminding people that if they don’t want to be homeless they need to learn a skill that pays a living wage. This is how it’s been forever.
- bee_rider 4y agoSo this is just a roundabout way of getting to the original post’s conclusion, right? A nice little coffeeshop may not be possible.
- stcroixx 4y agoA coffee shop is absolutely possible as long as nobody is interfering in the wage agreed on between employer and employee. We’ve had coffee shops forever and they have done fine. It’s only the modern expectation that they should pay more that is threatening that model.
- SantalBlush 4y agoYes, but it gets to the same conclusion in a more condescending way.
- bee_rider 4y agoI think the idea is that these jobs will be taken by teenagers whose parents will provide most of the cost-of-living. Or people working two jobs. The former seems OK, although there’s clearly a lot of demand for coffee shops workers, and a thin slice of the population (what, like 16-20 year olds or so) can’t serve all of it (and also they should really be prioritizing education at that age, so their overall availability should be very low). Having a bunch of people work two jobs is just failure of society.
- brookst 4y agoI don’t really buy the teenager theory. In that case, it’s just their parents subsidizing below-cost business operations. I don’t think it’s all that different from government subsidies at the macro scale.
- bee_rider 4y agoI don’t buy the theory itself, but I’m pretty sure that this is what people are thinking of when they say that below living wage jobs should exist. At least — when people say “below living wage jobs should not exist” I think they are not arguing for massive expansion of the social safety net, but for some more cutthroat version of capitalism, consequences be damned.
- shagie 4y agoThe needs of a single teenager or young adult are different than those of a middle aged adult with a house to maintain and dependents. If a teenager has a job, are they paying rent to their parents and paying for meals at the family table? This is already subsidized - job or no. The average teenager's job supports the things they want beyond that basic level of support that parents are expected to provide. This really boils down to the set of questions: 1. What value can a company realize with an unskilled worker? 2. What are the financial needs of an unskilled worker without dependents? 3. What are the financial needs of an unskilled worker that needs to support a household? 2 & 3 are likely not the same. And 1 will more closely match 2 than 3... and a lot of the arguments about a living wage are about case 3.
- Snild 4y agoIsn't that the whole point of jobs -- making a living? Your assertion makes no sense to me. I feel like I'm missing something.
- mhb 4y agoYes. That's not the whole point of all jobs.
- stcroixx 4y agoNo. I’ve probably had 20+ jobs in my lifetime and only expected to make enough to live with maybe half of them . The idea that working fast food, which I’ve done and anyone with a pulse could do, should pay enough to pay all of an adults living expenses is preposterous and makes no economic sense at all.
- vsareto 4y agoThere are plenty of other jobs that anyone with a pulse could do and make more than fast food. But of course those jobs make total economic sense, right?
- stcroixx 4y agoNot sure what those jobs are - generally the less skill needed the lower the compensation. If there are some easy jobs like you say that pay better and employer and employee are both in agreement that’s great.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- shanebellone 4y agoI'm not arguing the OP's point but... A fair wage represents an exchange of equal value. This does not speak to the viability of repeating that exchange as profession; only that reasonable compensation has been given for a reasonable amount of work.
- 4y ago