4 ms·

I've already addressed all of these questions. Bottom line is if your stance made your life more difficult while making workers lives easier, I'd be more inclin

I've already addressed all of these questions. Bottom line is if your stance made your life more difficult while making workers lives easier, I'd be more inclined to listen and take what you say seriously. But it doesn't. The workers earn less and conveniently you get to keep more money in your pocket, all while you get to tell yourself and anyone who will listen that you are fighting racism and exploitation or whatever. Ok, I'm done with this conversation. I will read whatever response you have and it will likely be the last word.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
I feel like you have a situation where some employers are racist and are paying black people less than white people, and I propose a solution, which is to offer to everyone only the prevailing wage that black workers get. Which would actually work. I might hire proportionally more black workers, but they're just as good and now I have lower average labor costs and can outcompete anyone not doing this. Which would ultimately raise the prevailing wage for black workers, because in order to compete with me the other businesses would either have to lower their labor costs or raise mine, which they can only do by narrowing the gap between what they offer to black workers and white workers. You're now upset with me and accuse me of wickedness because I'm not actually sacrificing anything, I'm only paying the white workers less. You say that in order to prove that I'm not just a selfish jerk I would have to pay everyone the prevailing wage for white workers. But then it would be me who is driven out of business because my average labor costs would be higher rather than lower than the competition. Which doesn't help anybody, because a business that immediately goes under changes nothing. Your criteria is structured to condemn effective solutions. If it has to disadvantage you then only affluent people with surplus to burn can do it, which inhibits widespread adoption and commonly turns it into a vapid virtue signaling exercise which is more about showing other members of your own social class what an altruist you are. The real test is whether it's a viable path to effective change. That all you have to do is act in your own self-interest and not have to be a self-sacrificing social activist is a great advantage, because it enables you to get the people who don't care about that to do the thing. I'm also not sure what self-interested benefit I'm supposed to be receiving by trying to convince strangers I don't otherwise want anything from to do this. If anything it would be the opposite, right? If I succeeded in convincing everyone else to stop tipping then the cost of paying workers would end up being reflected in the price of the services and I would lose the ability to pay less than other people.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

I feel like you have a situation where some employers are racist and are paying black people less than white people, and I propose a solution, which is to offer to everyone only the prevailing wage that black workers get. Which would actually work. I might hire proportionally more black workers, but they're just as good and now I have lower average labor costs and can outcompete anyone not doing this. Which would ultimately raise the prevailing wage for black workers, because in order to compete with me the other businesses would either have to lower their labor costs or raise mine, which they can only do by narrowing the gap between what they offer to black workers and white workers. You're now upset with me and accuse me of wickedness because I'm not actually sacrificing anything, I'm only paying the white workers less. You say that in order to prove that I'm not just a selfish jerk I would have to pay everyone the prevailing wage for white workers. But then it would be me who is driven out of business because my average labor costs would be higher rather than lower than the competition. Which doesn't help anybody, because a business that immediately goes under changes nothing. Your criteria is structured to condemn effective solutions. If it has to disadvantage you then only affluent people with surplus to burn can do it, which inhibits widespread adoption and commonly turns it into a vapid virtue signaling exercise which is more about showing other members of your own social class what an altruist you are. The real test is whether it's a viable path to effective change. That all you have to do is act in your own self-interest and not have to be a self-sacrificing social activist is a great advantage, because it enables you to get the people who don't care about that to do the thing. I'm also not sure what self-interested benefit I'm supposed to be receiving by trying to convince strangers I don't otherwise want anything from to do this. If anything it would be the opposite, right? If I succeeded in convincing everyone else to stop tipping then the cost of paying workers would end up being reflected in the price of the services and I would lose the ability to pay less than other people.