8 ms·

If the job is unskilled (i.e. you can train the next person to do it in less than one hour) and you have several people standing in line to take it if the perso

If the job is unskilled (i.e. you can train the next person to do it in less than one hour) and you have several people standing in line to take it if the person doing it, quits; then the current wage is clearly enough. It is just like the price of the meal. If it costs more than people are willing to pay, then it is too expensive; regardless of what you personally think it should cost.

callmeal 2y ago
>if the person doing it, quits If the person doing it (and the role can make or break the business) quits on short notice, then the current wage is clearly not enough.
ceejayoz 2y ago
There will always be people desperate enough to race to the bottom, but that doesn't make it a good thing for society at scale.
- cvwright 2y ago
  Especially when we import millions of low-skill / no-skill people every year to compete with the poor people who were born here. Works great for the upper classes - keeps the price down for those fancy Michelin dinners.
  - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
    Our immigrant ancestors were almost all unskilled. I’d rather the government not tell me where I can or cannot live, as a matter of basic human freedom.
  - astrange 2y ago
    Immigrants do not compete with native workers because they have complementary skills (like different native languages). The evidence is very very strong that immigration does not decrease wages. It generally increases them because it provides new demand, though that's not guaranteed.
    - carlosjobim 2y ago
      Demand is limitless and makes no benefit. Only production is beneficial.
      - astrange 2y ago
        That's certainly what Xi Jinping thinks.
dopylitty 2y ago
It doesn’t matter how easy a job is to learn. What matters is how many people are willing to do it and how important it is to society. Trash collection may be mostly driving trucks and throwing bags in the back but very few people are willing to do it and society grinds to a halt without it so those folks should be making way more than some Facebook coder who adjusts ad pixels all day. The problem is the US economic system is so backwards it values the ad pixel pusher more than the trash collector. At least until there’s a communicable disease going around and suddenly the trash collector is recognized as an essential worker and forced to come to work while the ad pixel pusher “works” from home.
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  > so those folks should be making way more I heard rumours that trash collectors in the US earn pretty good money, in part due to being unionized. I've experienced what happens if binmen go on strike firsthand and / or seen it on the news, it's not pretty. Whereas industries where there's plenty of supply, like the service industry, cannot get a union off the ground because for every unionized employee, there's plenty of un-unionized people waiting to get a job that doesn't pay them enough, but it's a job and that's good enough.
romwell 2y ago
>If the job is unskilled (i.e. you can train the next person to do it in less than one hour) and you have several people standing in line to take it if the person doing it, quits; then the current wage is clearly enough. Enough for whom and for what? For a society with slavery, absolutely. Also for a GULAG. If that's the environment you want to live in, North Korea is the best country! Everyone is getting wages that are enough. >It is just like the price of the meal. If it costs more than people are willing to pay, then it is too expensive; regardless of what you personally think it should cost Yes, meals that people can't afford are too expensive regardless of what you personally think it should cost. And wages that don't support living are too low regardless of what you personally think is enough.
atoav 2y ago
Sure, divide and conquer is the prerequisite to allow the non-working-class to exploit actual labor. I say human dignity is non-negotiable. So there should be a legal minimum wage which is automatically adjusted to the living prices of wherever the person you hire is expected to work. If you are unable (or worse: unwilling) to pay people enough to survive of your work, you are irresponsible and a leech on society that should be out of business anyways. I understand that some have been brain-washed into believing that leveraging your education, inherited wealth or position of power to exploit others is a sign of being smart or some sort other conclusion that coincidentally justifies the desirable outcome — but that doesn't change the self serving nature of anybody discussing for that kind of exploitation. And as markets have shown to suck at respecting any externalities, be it nature, culture, the rights of future generations or human dignity, they have to be regulated to do so. If your business is unable to survive that, it wasn't for the benefit of society anyways.
- throwaway199129 2y ago
  This makes the assumption that all workers require a living wage. When I worked as a teenager and throughout college, I didn't need to make a living wage since I either lived with my parents or with roommates (admittedly funded by a combination of work and student loans). During that phase of my life, I didn't require a living wage. I just needed some extra money, and so I was willing to accept lower paying jobs that wouldn't necessarily support every expense. Someone who required a living wage couldn't have worked those jobs, but they were perfect for me, so I was glad they existed at the time.
  - atoav 2y ago
    It doesn't matter if you require the living wage or not — there will always be people who don't strictly need it in any society. Just like there will be people on the beach who won't ever need a life guard. Everybody needing a thing is not a precondition for it making sense to exist. If we want a society without exploitation the simple fix is to lift the minimum wage beyond any value that could be considered exploitation within the given context. Not being able to live off your full time job is certainly exploitation. If you don't need that much e.g. because you have the luck of having your parents support, don't work the full job then. Easy. Less hours worked, more time to study.
bee_rider 2y ago
I’m under the impression that this isn’t the case; restaurants always seem to be hiring, and service is quite poor nowadays due, I guess(?) to understaffing.
nkrisc 2y ago
That’s like saying because slaves do as they’re told, they don’t mind doing it. After all, if they didn’t want to do it, they would refuse. Those people are lining up to take a job that doesn’t pay enough because it’s better than no job or whatever worse job they currently have. We could restructure society so that $5/hour is “enough” for some people and then the rest of could enjoy even cheaper meals. /s

callmeal 2y ago

>if the person doing it, quits If the person doing it (and the role can make or break the business) quits on short notice, then the current wage is clearly not enough.

ceejayoz 2y ago

There will always be people desperate enough to race to the bottom, but that doesn't make it a good thing for society at scale.

cvwright 2y ago
Especially when we import millions of low-skill / no-skill people every year to compete with the poor people who were born here. Works great for the upper classes - keeps the price down for those fancy Michelin dinners.
- amanaplanacanal 2y ago
  Our immigrant ancestors were almost all unskilled. I’d rather the government not tell me where I can or cannot live, as a matter of basic human freedom.
- astrange 2y ago
  Immigrants do not compete with native workers because they have complementary skills (like different native languages). The evidence is very very strong that immigration does not decrease wages. It generally increases them because it provides new demand, though that's not guaranteed.
  - carlosjobim 2y ago
    Demand is limitless and makes no benefit. Only production is beneficial.
    - astrange 2y ago
      That's certainly what Xi Jinping thinks.

dopylitty 2y ago

It doesn’t matter how easy a job is to learn. What matters is how many people are willing to do it and how important it is to society. Trash collection may be mostly driving trucks and throwing bags in the back but very few people are willing to do it and society grinds to a halt without it so those folks should be making way more than some Facebook coder who adjusts ad pixels all day. The problem is the US economic system is so backwards it values the ad pixel pusher more than the trash collector. At least until there’s a communicable disease going around and suddenly the trash collector is recognized as an essential worker and forced to come to work while the ad pixel pusher “works” from home.

Cthulhu_ 2y ago
> so those folks should be making way more I heard rumours that trash collectors in the US earn pretty good money, in part due to being unionized. I've experienced what happens if binmen go on strike firsthand and / or seen it on the news, it's not pretty. Whereas industries where there's plenty of supply, like the service industry, cannot get a union off the ground because for every unionized employee, there's plenty of un-unionized people waiting to get a job that doesn't pay them enough, but it's a job and that's good enough.

romwell 2y ago

>If the job is unskilled (i.e. you can train the next person to do it in less than one hour) and you have several people standing in line to take it if the person doing it, quits; then the current wage is clearly enough. Enough for whom and for what? For a society with slavery, absolutely. Also for a GULAG. If that's the environment you want to live in, North Korea is the best country! Everyone is getting wages that are enough. >It is just like the price of the meal. If it costs more than people are willing to pay, then it is too expensive; regardless of what you personally think it should cost Yes, meals that people can't afford are too expensive regardless of what you personally think it should cost. And wages that don't support living are too low regardless of what you personally think is enough.

atoav 2y ago

Sure, divide and conquer is the prerequisite to allow the non-working-class to exploit actual labor. I say human dignity is non-negotiable. So there should be a legal minimum wage which is automatically adjusted to the living prices of wherever the person you hire is expected to work. If you are unable (or worse: unwilling) to pay people enough to survive of your work, you are irresponsible and a leech on society that should be out of business anyways. I understand that some have been brain-washed into believing that leveraging your education, inherited wealth or position of power to exploit others is a sign of being smart or some sort other conclusion that coincidentally justifies the desirable outcome — but that doesn't change the self serving nature of anybody discussing for that kind of exploitation. And as markets have shown to suck at respecting any externalities, be it nature, culture, the rights of future generations or human dignity, they have to be regulated to do so. If your business is unable to survive that, it wasn't for the benefit of society anyways.

throwaway199129 2y ago
This makes the assumption that all workers require a living wage. When I worked as a teenager and throughout college, I didn't need to make a living wage since I either lived with my parents or with roommates (admittedly funded by a combination of work and student loans). During that phase of my life, I didn't require a living wage. I just needed some extra money, and so I was willing to accept lower paying jobs that wouldn't necessarily support every expense. Someone who required a living wage couldn't have worked those jobs, but they were perfect for me, so I was glad they existed at the time.
- atoav 2y ago
  It doesn't matter if you require the living wage or not — there will always be people who don't strictly need it in any society. Just like there will be people on the beach who won't ever need a life guard. Everybody needing a thing is not a precondition for it making sense to exist. If we want a society without exploitation the simple fix is to lift the minimum wage beyond any value that could be considered exploitation within the given context. Not being able to live off your full time job is certainly exploitation. If you don't need that much e.g. because you have the luck of having your parents support, don't work the full job then. Easy. Less hours worked, more time to study.

bee_rider 2y ago

I’m under the impression that this isn’t the case; restaurants always seem to be hiring, and service is quite poor nowadays due, I guess(?) to understaffing.

nkrisc 2y ago

That’s like saying because slaves do as they’re told, they don’t mind doing it. After all, if they didn’t want to do it, they would refuse. Those people are lining up to take a job that doesn’t pay enough because it’s better than no job or whatever worse job they currently have. We could restructure society so that $5/hour is “enough” for some people and then the rest of could enjoy even cheaper meals. /s