20 ms·

> Labor is supposed to have value. A good days’ work deserves a good days’ pay. Society by and large does not believe this. If you dig into it a little bit, as

> Labor is supposed to have value. A good days’ work deserves a good days’ pay. Society by and large does not believe this. If you dig into it a little bit, asking why fast-food workers and the people that serve them their starbucks shouldn't make more money, the answer always boils down to "I need people that serve me to be socioeconomically inferior to me"

not-my-account 3y ago
> "I need people that serve me to be socioeconomically inferior to me" Do you actually think people think this way? I’ve never met anyone who thinks like that.
- JohnMakin 3y ago
  Go ahead, ask someone to explain why a guy at starbucks "deserves" to be making less than a living wage, it boils down to this. There's no real argument for it. If you ask them why they shouldn't make more, they'll typically say something like "it's not meant to be a career" or some nonsense about inflation. Yet, society still needs people to pour coffee or serve fast food, so by arguing against a living wage in this manner you are actually arguing that people with menial service jobs should be poor by merit of the type of work they do. Granted that isn't a perfect 1:1 with what I said, but the attitude is definitely there. Why else would someone be so vehemently against a person making a living wage?
  - not-my-account 3y ago
    The question as "why does the guy at Starbucks deserve to be making less than minimum wage" assumes the counter-party agrees that the guy at Starbucks deserves this. In reality, (I assume that) the people who disagree with you don't have malice for poor people, but are seeing different levels of the economic stack. I would bet (I'll put money down) that they'd argue a mix of labor supply/demand and regulatory arguments, and that they're NOT just hoping to put down those who are economically less well-off. It's important to actually understand your counterparties if you actually want to improve things. EDIT give this a go https://depolarizinggpt.org/ https://depolarizinggpt.org/
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - JohnMakin 3y ago
      I think anyone who thinks a lot of people don’t think like this should spend some time in the last 20 years of minimum wage debates. I was heavily involved in the fight for a $15 min wage in california (and other states) which hilariously and ironically is already too low by the time it finally happened. I am well aware of the arguments people present against it, and very vocally. I understand the counterparties well and the levers of power they like to press to convince people a walmart worker doing 50 hour weeks shouldnt earn enough to survive. People expressed doubt in this thread people actually think like this - they do. Seriously go look at any argument about it online.
tomrod 3y ago
I call BS on this, that society "by and large" must be served by socioecnomic inferiors. We simply have too many societies where socioeconomic class is a main divider that don't have a tipping culture. People not in the luxury class respond to prices, full stop. This is a policy (tipping allowed to be performed) that has gained pseudomoral status.
Yodel0914 3y ago
I don't think either of these positions is correct. The reason fast food workers don't earn more money is because there is a pool of workers who are willing to accept the current wages, because they don't have a better alternative. It has nothing to do with "deserve", in either direction.
- KennyBlanken 3y ago
  No, it's because welfare programs enable employers to offer wages that aren't livable. The absolute floor for wages should at least meet a person's non-discretionary expenses plus a bit of discretionary spending if they're working close to full time. If it doesn't meet that minimum level, then the employee is unable to work that job. They simply can't. By moving some of their non-discretionary spending to welfare, that means the employer can offer a lower wage. We are effectively subsidizing all the businesses that utilize entry-level/"unskilled" labor. Walmart employs people whose sole job is to help walmart workers apply for welfare benefits, and as a result, can pay those people less. Realize that state and federal agencies spend time developing pamphlets advising welfare recipients how to make the absolute most out of the maximum of roughly eight dollars a day SNAP provides in benefits per person. It's crazy that we're telling welfare recipients how to make the most of eight dollars a day for food, while giving tax writeoffs for business jets.
  - dwaltrip 3y ago
    > The absolute floor for wages should at least meet a person's non-discretionary expenses plus a bit of discretionary spending if they're working close to full time. If it doesn't meet that minimum level, then the employee is unable to work that job. They simply can't. You are over-simplifying. That isn’t how it plays out in reality. People will accept a non-livable wage under many circumstances. Here’s a few: * working extra hours at two different minimum wage jobs * living costs subsidized in some way, e.g. living with friends or family * college student or high-school student who doesn’t yet have to pay for all of their expenses * homeless or partially homeless * relying on savings to cover the gap * retired person who doesn’t need to earn enough to cover all of their expenses And so on…
s1artibartfast 3y ago
I think this is an absurdly cynical take. I have never met someone who thinks that. I think most people actually believe in supply and demand, and that it has nothing to do with effort. Most people intuitively understand that if someone is not easily replaceable, they have more leverage. If there is a line of replacements out the door, they have little leverage.
- JohnMakin 3y ago
  > Most people intuitively understand that if someone is not easily replaceable, they have more leverage. If there is a line of replacements out the door, they have little leverage. There often is not a line of replacements out the door, yet, despite this, wages are still too low. Entire industries have started to die because of this - like for instance certain north eastern crab fisheries relied on cheap migrant labor that dried up, couldn't find anyone to do it, even though technically "anyone" could do the job. Why haven't workers capitalized on this "leverage" you speak of to get higher wages? Are they just too dumb/lazy?
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I don't see that as contradicting what I said at all. Sometimes industries can't compete on wages and go out of business. Thats an example of workers having leverage. The workers did get a higher wage, just not on a crab boat. If you want to stereotype workers, they are smart and lazy. nobody wants to work longer and harder to make less, when they could work less and make more. To counter your question, why do you think the boat owners went out of business? Were the owners just to stupid or stubborn to pay more? That they would rather lose their investment, and often their own livelihood, rather than pay workers more?
    - JohnMakin 3y ago
      In this specific example they tried to pay more but couldn’t find anyone for a lot of different reasons. They had an industry that was propped up by artificially cheap labor (migrants with no other options). There are other artificially cheap labor markets that big companies prey on - like labor markets where the workers dont make enough to actually eat so the companies employ people to tell the workers how to use state welfare more effectively. It’s a complete farce at best for people to assume this is pure capitalism working as intended for these labor markets to exist at all. it’s either backed by the state or by really nasty external forces that give segments of people very few other options. You can employ people and pay them enough to survive and still make a profit, yet there are weird segments of the internet that insist some types of work must be done on the backs of essentially slave labor. if that’s truly the case it should change.
antisthenes 3y ago
> the answer always boils down to "I need people that serve me to be socioeconomically inferior to me" By generalizing the counter-argument and making a mockery of it, you have made a disservice to your own argument, because now I can reply with another generalized absurdity like "Oh, you just believe everyone should be paid the same, regardless of how intellectually or physically challenging the job is". Thus, no progress is made to resolve the actual problem. Don't do this if you are arguing in good faith.
Tanoc 3y ago
I agree that society doesn't believe this. But I disagree on your explanation as to why. The biggest reason why people don't believe this is because they have no idea as to the amount of work that's being done. If you hear a cashier is being paid $16.00 an hour when the only time you witness them is when you're buying a bag of Doritos and a bottle of Pepsi where they scan your card and bag your groceries you might think that they're being overpaid. You're witnessing ten percent of their duties, where the other ninety percent have them doing the stocking work around the register, doing cleaning, keeping track of inventory, sorting and organizing checks to be cashed, verifying and indexing wire transfers, and keeping appropriate change in the register. Most low paying jobs have the highest amount of effort. Currently, working in fast food is a much more demanding job that requires more effort than being a mechanical engineer, surveyor, or project manager. And yet those three will make four times what the fast food worker makes because their jobs are perceived as having more value to society, their education much more complex and thus more costly, and the positions they fill being very few and far between. People of all economic ranks think that those three perform more effort in their positions than the fast food worker and thus they are more worthy of the increased wages, when in reality they did more preparation beforehand (college, apprenticeships, working shit jobs like fast food) so that their positions require less effort now. Note that this has nothing to do with the real or perceived impact of their actual jobs. In contrast the fast food worker cannot frontload the effort in preparation of a better position later, because the demanding but menial work is the better position compared to being homeless or on social welfare programs. This is one of the reasons why rates of burnout, depression, and anxiety are so high in those that work services and retail compared to other industries.
Tangurena2 3y ago
It is a hang-up based on the Protestant Work Ethic. > Calvin taught that all men must work, even the rich, because to work was the will of God. It was the duty of men to serve as God's instruments here on earth, to reshape the world in the fashion of the Kingdom of God, and to become a part of the continuing process of His creation (Braude, 1975). Men were not to lust after wealth, possessions, or easy living, but were to reinvest the profits of their labor into financing further ventures. Earnings were thus to be reinvested over and over again, ad infinitum, or to the end of time (Lipset, 1990). Using profits to help others rise from a lessor level of subsistence violated God's will since persons could only demonstrate that they were among the Elect through their own labor (Lipset, 1990). > Selection of an occupation and pursuing it to achieve the greatest profit possible was considered by Calvinists to be a religious duty. Not only condoning, but encouraging the pursuit of unlimited profit was a radical departure from the Christian beliefs of the middle ages. In addition, unlike Luther, Calvin considered it appropriate to seek an occupation which would provide the greatest earnings possible. If that meant abandoning the family trade or profession, the change was not only allowed, but it was considered to be one's religious duty (Tilgher, 1930). http://workethic.coe.uga.edu/hpro.html http://workethic.coe.uga.edu/hpro.html https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic

not-my-account 3y ago

> "I need people that serve me to be socioeconomically inferior to me" Do you actually think people think this way? I’ve never met anyone who thinks like that.

JohnMakin 3y ago
Go ahead, ask someone to explain why a guy at starbucks "deserves" to be making less than a living wage, it boils down to this. There's no real argument for it. If you ask them why they shouldn't make more, they'll typically say something like "it's not meant to be a career" or some nonsense about inflation. Yet, society still needs people to pour coffee or serve fast food, so by arguing against a living wage in this manner you are actually arguing that people with menial service jobs should be poor by merit of the type of work they do. Granted that isn't a perfect 1:1 with what I said, but the attitude is definitely there. Why else would someone be so vehemently against a person making a living wage?
- not-my-account 3y ago
  The question as "why does the guy at Starbucks deserve to be making less than minimum wage" assumes the counter-party agrees that the guy at Starbucks deserves this. In reality, (I assume that) the people who disagree with you don't have malice for poor people, but are seeing different levels of the economic stack. I would bet (I'll put money down) that they'd argue a mix of labor supply/demand and regulatory arguments, and that they're NOT just hoping to put down those who are economically less well-off. It's important to actually understand your counterparties if you actually want to improve things. EDIT give this a go https://depolarizinggpt.org/ https://depolarizinggpt.org/
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - JohnMakin 3y ago
    I think anyone who thinks a lot of people don’t think like this should spend some time in the last 20 years of minimum wage debates. I was heavily involved in the fight for a $15 min wage in california (and other states) which hilariously and ironically is already too low by the time it finally happened. I am well aware of the arguments people present against it, and very vocally. I understand the counterparties well and the levers of power they like to press to convince people a walmart worker doing 50 hour weeks shouldnt earn enough to survive. People expressed doubt in this thread people actually think like this - they do. Seriously go look at any argument about it online.

tomrod 3y ago

I call BS on this, that society "by and large" must be served by socioecnomic inferiors. We simply have too many societies where socioeconomic class is a main divider that don't have a tipping culture. People not in the luxury class respond to prices, full stop. This is a policy (tipping allowed to be performed) that has gained pseudomoral status.

Yodel0914 3y ago

I don't think either of these positions is correct. The reason fast food workers don't earn more money is because there is a pool of workers who are willing to accept the current wages, because they don't have a better alternative. It has nothing to do with "deserve", in either direction.

KennyBlanken 3y ago
No, it's because welfare programs enable employers to offer wages that aren't livable. The absolute floor for wages should at least meet a person's non-discretionary expenses plus a bit of discretionary spending if they're working close to full time. If it doesn't meet that minimum level, then the employee is unable to work that job. They simply can't. By moving some of their non-discretionary spending to welfare, that means the employer can offer a lower wage. We are effectively subsidizing all the businesses that utilize entry-level/"unskilled" labor. Walmart employs people whose sole job is to help walmart workers apply for welfare benefits, and as a result, can pay those people less. Realize that state and federal agencies spend time developing pamphlets advising welfare recipients how to make the absolute most out of the maximum of roughly eight dollars a day SNAP provides in benefits per person. It's crazy that we're telling welfare recipients how to make the most of eight dollars a day for food, while giving tax writeoffs for business jets.
- dwaltrip 3y ago
  > The absolute floor for wages should at least meet a person's non-discretionary expenses plus a bit of discretionary spending if they're working close to full time. If it doesn't meet that minimum level, then the employee is unable to work that job. They simply can't. You are over-simplifying. That isn’t how it plays out in reality. People will accept a non-livable wage under many circumstances. Here’s a few: * working extra hours at two different minimum wage jobs * living costs subsidized in some way, e.g. living with friends or family * college student or high-school student who doesn’t yet have to pay for all of their expenses * homeless or partially homeless * relying on savings to cover the gap * retired person who doesn’t need to earn enough to cover all of their expenses And so on…

s1artibartfast 3y ago

I think this is an absurdly cynical take. I have never met someone who thinks that. I think most people actually believe in supply and demand, and that it has nothing to do with effort. Most people intuitively understand that if someone is not easily replaceable, they have more leverage. If there is a line of replacements out the door, they have little leverage.

JohnMakin 3y ago
> Most people intuitively understand that if someone is not easily replaceable, they have more leverage. If there is a line of replacements out the door, they have little leverage. There often is not a line of replacements out the door, yet, despite this, wages are still too low. Entire industries have started to die because of this - like for instance certain north eastern crab fisheries relied on cheap migrant labor that dried up, couldn't find anyone to do it, even though technically "anyone" could do the job. Why haven't workers capitalized on this "leverage" you speak of to get higher wages? Are they just too dumb/lazy?
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I don't see that as contradicting what I said at all. Sometimes industries can't compete on wages and go out of business. Thats an example of workers having leverage. The workers did get a higher wage, just not on a crab boat. If you want to stereotype workers, they are smart and lazy. nobody wants to work longer and harder to make less, when they could work less and make more. To counter your question, why do you think the boat owners went out of business? Were the owners just to stupid or stubborn to pay more? That they would rather lose their investment, and often their own livelihood, rather than pay workers more?
  - JohnMakin 3y ago
    In this specific example they tried to pay more but couldn’t find anyone for a lot of different reasons. They had an industry that was propped up by artificially cheap labor (migrants with no other options). There are other artificially cheap labor markets that big companies prey on - like labor markets where the workers dont make enough to actually eat so the companies employ people to tell the workers how to use state welfare more effectively. It’s a complete farce at best for people to assume this is pure capitalism working as intended for these labor markets to exist at all. it’s either backed by the state or by really nasty external forces that give segments of people very few other options. You can employ people and pay them enough to survive and still make a profit, yet there are weird segments of the internet that insist some types of work must be done on the backs of essentially slave labor. if that’s truly the case it should change.

antisthenes 3y ago

> the answer always boils down to "I need people that serve me to be socioeconomically inferior to me" By generalizing the counter-argument and making a mockery of it, you have made a disservice to your own argument, because now I can reply with another generalized absurdity like "Oh, you just believe everyone should be paid the same, regardless of how intellectually or physically challenging the job is". Thus, no progress is made to resolve the actual problem. Don't do this if you are arguing in good faith.

Tanoc 3y ago

I agree that society doesn't believe this. But I disagree on your explanation as to why. The biggest reason why people don't believe this is because they have no idea as to the amount of work that's being done. If you hear a cashier is being paid $16.00 an hour when the only time you witness them is when you're buying a bag of Doritos and a bottle of Pepsi where they scan your card and bag your groceries you might think that they're being overpaid. You're witnessing ten percent of their duties, where the other ninety percent have them doing the stocking work around the register, doing cleaning, keeping track of inventory, sorting and organizing checks to be cashed, verifying and indexing wire transfers, and keeping appropriate change in the register. Most low paying jobs have the highest amount of effort. Currently, working in fast food is a much more demanding job that requires more effort than being a mechanical engineer, surveyor, or project manager. And yet those three will make four times what the fast food worker makes because their jobs are perceived as having more value to society, their education much more complex and thus more costly, and the positions they fill being very few and far between. People of all economic ranks think that those three perform more effort in their positions than the fast food worker and thus they are more worthy of the increased wages, when in reality they did more preparation beforehand (college, apprenticeships, working shit jobs like fast food) so that their positions require less effort now. Note that this has nothing to do with the real or perceived impact of their actual jobs. In contrast the fast food worker cannot frontload the effort in preparation of a better position later, because the demanding but menial work is the better position compared to being homeless or on social welfare programs. This is one of the reasons why rates of burnout, depression, and anxiety are so high in those that work services and retail compared to other industries.

Tangurena2 3y ago

It is a hang-up based on the Protestant Work Ethic. > Calvin taught that all men must work, even the rich, because to work was the will of God. It was the duty of men to serve as God's instruments here on earth, to reshape the world in the fashion of the Kingdom of God, and to become a part of the continuing process of His creation (Braude, 1975). Men were not to lust after wealth, possessions, or easy living, but were to reinvest the profits of their labor into financing further ventures. Earnings were thus to be reinvested over and over again, ad infinitum, or to the end of time (Lipset, 1990). Using profits to help others rise from a lessor level of subsistence violated God's will since persons could only demonstrate that they were among the Elect through their own labor (Lipset, 1990). > Selection of an occupation and pursuing it to achieve the greatest profit possible was considered by Calvinists to be a religious duty. Not only condoning, but encouraging the pursuit of unlimited profit was a radical departure from the Christian beliefs of the middle ages. In addition, unlike Luther, Calvin considered it appropriate to seek an occupation which would provide the greatest earnings possible. If that meant abandoning the family trade or profession, the change was not only allowed, but it was considered to be one's religious duty (Tilgher, 1930). http://workethic.coe.uga.edu/hpro.html http://workethic.coe.uga.edu/hpro.html https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic