3 ms·

If you want that and you aren't producing enough value to warrant it, why should someone else pay for it? Find some more valuable work to do, work harder In th

by npoc 3y ago

If you want that and you aren't producing enough value to warrant it, why should someone else pay for it? Find some more valuable work to do, work harder In the UK you'll get benefits to top up your wage anyway.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
margalabargala 3y ago
> you aren't producing enough value to warrant it In industries where the availability of workers is high, the amount of value produced per worker does not particularly relate to the amount that that worker is paid. If the worker produces more than enough value to their employer that that employer could pay them enough to live with dignity while also making a profit on that worker, then perhaps they ought be required to.
ziddoap 3y ago
This is some "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" bullshit. There are many, many situations where it is simply not possible to just "find more valuable work to do" or to just "work harder" and have it result in more money.
- npoc 3y ago
  That doesn't mean that enforcing a minimum wage is the correct way to fix the problem. It's not.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
whatindaheck 3y ago
Someone has to collect the garbage, clean public restrooms, produce our food, etc. We can't all be CEOs. Society depends on these "lowly" jobs. If the three jobs above ceased to exist we'd all be in trouble. They're all important enough to warrant a dignity wage. In first grade we all learn that food, shelter, and water are the most basic living requirements. Add standard-of-living necessities such as internet, education, and healthcare access into the mix if you feel generous. How can we afford NOT to provide basic requirements for these keystone jobs? Sure, they aren't "innovating" the newest phone or providing value to shareholders (gross), but in many ways they're far more important. If you really want to own a Ferrari, or really anything extraneous, sure you should have to pull on those bootstraps. But not for food. Not for water. Not for shelter.
- gruez 3y ago
  >We can't all be CEOs. Society depends on these "lowly" jobs. If the three jobs above ceased to exist we'd all be in trouble. This feels like a variant of "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded". If there was some critical job that's going unfilled, the offering price will go up and up until someone bites, ensuring it will be filled.
  - whatindaheck 3y ago
    I’d agree if we all lived in a vacuum. Workers can’t hold out. They (we) need food and housing. Individuals can’t hold out hoping wages go up. From a group standpoint, unions have been weakened to such a degree in the US (where I live) that it’s hard to put together an action. Now if unions were strengthened and grew to a point that the minimum wage had no bearing on real life. Sure, get the government out. It’s probably better that way. But you can’t strike down group power and force people to eat crap.

by npoc 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

margalabargala 3y ago

> you aren't producing enough value to warrant it In industries where the availability of workers is high, the amount of value produced per worker does not particularly relate to the amount that that worker is paid. If the worker produces more than enough value to their employer that that employer could pay them enough to live with dignity while also making a profit on that worker, then perhaps they ought be required to.

ziddoap 3y ago

This is some "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" bullshit. There are many, many situations where it is simply not possible to just "find more valuable work to do" or to just "work harder" and have it result in more money.

npoc 3y ago
That doesn't mean that enforcing a minimum wage is the correct way to fix the problem. It's not.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

whatindaheck 3y ago

Someone has to collect the garbage, clean public restrooms, produce our food, etc. We can't all be CEOs. Society depends on these "lowly" jobs. If the three jobs above ceased to exist we'd all be in trouble. They're all important enough to warrant a dignity wage. In first grade we all learn that food, shelter, and water are the most basic living requirements. Add standard-of-living necessities such as internet, education, and healthcare access into the mix if you feel generous. How can we afford NOT to provide basic requirements for these keystone jobs? Sure, they aren't "innovating" the newest phone or providing value to shareholders (gross), but in many ways they're far more important. If you really want to own a Ferrari, or really anything extraneous, sure you should have to pull on those bootstraps. But not for food. Not for water. Not for shelter.

gruez 3y ago
>We can't all be CEOs. Society depends on these "lowly" jobs. If the three jobs above ceased to exist we'd all be in trouble. This feels like a variant of "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded". If there was some critical job that's going unfilled, the offering price will go up and up until someone bites, ensuring it will be filled.
- whatindaheck 3y ago
  I’d agree if we all lived in a vacuum. Workers can’t hold out. They (we) need food and housing. Individuals can’t hold out hoping wages go up. From a group standpoint, unions have been weakened to such a degree in the US (where I live) that it’s hard to put together an action. Now if unions were strengthened and grew to a point that the minimum wage had no bearing on real life. Sure, get the government out. It’s probably better that way. But you can’t strike down group power and force people to eat crap.