4 ms·

Sure seems like many people would rather destroy low paying jobs and feel better about themselves than acknowledge that there will always be a place for such jo

Sure seems like many people would rather destroy low paying jobs and feel better about themselves than acknowledge that there will always be a place for such jobs - especially at the rate we are importing many segments of the world with much lower standards of living. I'm not sure the point is to actually help people for whom something is better than nothing, it's to demonstrate resentment and frustration and a worldview that sees all wage labor as exploitative. If you want the services to fail don't use them and don't work for them, it's simple.

pierat 3y ago
This is also counterbalanced by the idea: "If you work, your basic needs should be absolutely met and with a little bit more." > I'm not sure the point is to actually help people for whom something is better than nothing, it's to demonstrate resentment and frustration and a worldview that sees all wage labor as exploitative. The "gig" companies are the ones taking the bulk of the money, and then disbursing pittances and stealing tips. They can definitely pay better.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
  >"If you work, your basic needs should be absolutely met and with a little bit more." So, how many hours do I need to work before this logic kicks in? Presumably not just one per week, right? Does my employer get the right to pay me less because my needs are met in part by an inheritance or because I share the rent with someone else who works? At what level of granularity does the basic cost of living get decided? i.e. if I flip burgers at the McDonald's at the corner of Chambers and Greenwich (in the middle of TriBeCa) does that mean I should be paid enough to live there too? The basic ideal of dignity of work is fine, you just can't get there from here.