4 ms·

> Not all work is worth a living wage. And there we have it. "I don't view your work as being valuable enough to justify you being able to obtain basic needs f

> Not all work is worth a living wage. And there we have it. "I don't view your work as being valuable enough to justify you being able to obtain basic needs for yourself (like food and shelter), let alone a family. Now give me my frappe." Funny how we will still call such employees "essential" when it's time to force them to work in shitty and potentially dangerous conditions.

SoftTalker 4y ago
Sweeping the floor at a factory is just not a high value job. Anyone can do it, and if you demand that they pay $40/hr with full benefits they will just buy industrial Roombas and deprive someone of a job he may have been happy to have as a first job or for supplemental income.
- ssnistfajen 4y ago
  >if you demand that they pay $40/hr with full benefits >a job he may have been happy to have as a first job or for supplemental income You are contradicting yourself here. Those two conditions don't occur at the same time.
  - SoftTalker 4y ago
    did you overlook the "or" in my sentence?
    - ssnistfajen 4y ago
      No. Someone who's happy to have a first job OR as supplemental income is not going to demand $40/hr with full benefits in those sectors. You are using a completely hypothetical scenario to justify exploiting children.
      - SoftTalker 4y ago
        Ok I misread your conment. I was responding to those who seem to think that any job should be able to support a family, or should not be permitted to exist. Not supporting exploitation of children, dont know where that came from.
ssnistfajen 4y ago
A significant chunk of the userbase here work in jobs that use <flavour of the month> frameworks "reinventing" the <flavour of the year> stack because it will totally "disrupt" some completely saturated market, in companies averaging less than 12 months inbetween pivots and still earning less than 60¢ in revenue per $1 cost, more than five years after founding because they hire Stanford grads to write CRUD apps at a per person cost of starting entire small businesses. Of course they feel the need to validate the existence of their own jobs by shitting on "low skill" jobs that have actually been essential to keep our society functioning especially over the last 3 years.
- SoftTalker 4y ago
  Speak for yourself, my first jobs were flipping burgers and making pizza. Both "low skill" and paid accordingly. I could not have supported a family on those jobs but I was not trying to and they gave me experience and references as to my work ethic and character that were helpful in gaining higher skill, higher paying jobs.
  - ssnistfajen 4y ago
    >my first jobs were flipping burgers and making pizza. Can you read the article first before typing out your next comment? Those jobs have always hired teens without these imminent changes to child labour laws. You are defending something that hasn't changed, and isn't relevant to what people are concerned about as reported in the article link in this thread.

SoftTalker 4y ago

Sweeping the floor at a factory is just not a high value job. Anyone can do it, and if you demand that they pay $40/hr with full benefits they will just buy industrial Roombas and deprive someone of a job he may have been happy to have as a first job or for supplemental income.

ssnistfajen 4y ago
>if you demand that they pay $40/hr with full benefits >a job he may have been happy to have as a first job or for supplemental income You are contradicting yourself here. Those two conditions don't occur at the same time.
- SoftTalker 4y ago
  did you overlook the "or" in my sentence?
  - ssnistfajen 4y ago
    No. Someone who's happy to have a first job OR as supplemental income is not going to demand $40/hr with full benefits in those sectors. You are using a completely hypothetical scenario to justify exploiting children.
    - SoftTalker 4y ago
      Ok I misread your conment. I was responding to those who seem to think that any job should be able to support a family, or should not be permitted to exist. Not supporting exploitation of children, dont know where that came from.

ssnistfajen 4y ago

A significant chunk of the userbase here work in jobs that use <flavour of the month> frameworks "reinventing" the <flavour of the year> stack because it will totally "disrupt" some completely saturated market, in companies averaging less than 12 months inbetween pivots and still earning less than 60¢ in revenue per $1 cost, more than five years after founding because they hire Stanford grads to write CRUD apps at a per person cost of starting entire small businesses. Of course they feel the need to validate the existence of their own jobs by shitting on "low skill" jobs that have actually been essential to keep our society functioning especially over the last 3 years.

SoftTalker 4y ago
Speak for yourself, my first jobs were flipping burgers and making pizza. Both "low skill" and paid accordingly. I could not have supported a family on those jobs but I was not trying to and they gave me experience and references as to my work ethic and character that were helpful in gaining higher skill, higher paying jobs.
- ssnistfajen 4y ago
  >my first jobs were flipping burgers and making pizza. Can you read the article first before typing out your next comment? Those jobs have always hired teens without these imminent changes to child labour laws. You are defending something that hasn't changed, and isn't relevant to what people are concerned about as reported in the article link in this thread.