2 ms·
You are basically arguing that rich entities shouldn't employ low income employees, with this logic. While you can imagine this means richer people will start
by taeric 2y ago
You are basically arguing that rich entities shouldn't employ low income employees, with this logic.
While you can imagine this means richer people will start to do all of their low income work, that also means there are no lower income jobs. We can hope those are simply shifted up the pay scale, but it is equally as likely that the jobs just go away. Likely not full classes of jobs, mind you, but certainly there will be fewer low payed jobs than otherwise.
Just as likely, you will get companies relationships structured such that these relationships are not direct. Which... by definition is adding middlemen to the equation. I'm not a huge fan of efficiency arguments, but this does seem needless bad in that realm.
- iancmceachern 2y agoThis is reducto ad absurdum
- taeric 2y agoIn a real sense, so is the other argument. It is not based on any real principal. It is literally reducing the argument to the absurd difference between the richest and the poorest. I'm happy to see evidence on any studies that focus on optimal ratios of income for different people in an organization. Resting this on "relative income from the warehouse workers to the CEO" would need more than appeal to emotion. I say all of this as someone that is all for taxing rich people.