3 ms·
While I agree with your sentiment, that logic doesn't hold. If the wage for a job is too low to afford life, then we can say either the job is underpaid or the
by FredPret 2y ago
While I agree with your sentiment, that logic doesn't hold.
If the wage for a job is too low to afford life, then we can say either the job is underpaid or the job is fairly compensated but simply not worth doing. If dishwashers quit in numbers for other jobs, dishwasher pay would have to rise if restaurants can afford it, or the restaurant industry would wither, and from an economic point of view, deservedly so.
Of course, this theory works best in a dynamic economy where people and capital can move around with a minimum amount of friction.
- romwell 2y agoThe parent comment said nothing about the job, they commented on a full-time wage. Their point stands.
- piva00 2y ago> Of course, this theory works best in a dynamic economy where people and capital can move around with a minimum amount of friction. This assumption is akin to a spherical cow, frictionless surface, etc. In the real world capital and people won't ever move around with a minimum amount of friction, nor will people retrain for other jobs easily.
- FredPret 2y agoDishwashers can easily move to other low-wage jobs if they exist
- dfxm12 2y agoSpherical cows are more or less a natural impossibility. The economic system in the US is designed to add friction for people like those in these types of situations to switch jobs, retrain, etc. That's an important distinction.
- bumby 2y ago>wage for a job is too low to afford life This also simplifies the scenario to assume that wages are the only income. It would be like building a mental model around people who live at home with their parents and concluding whatever money they make is obviously sufficient to 'afford life'. It ignores all the extraneous ways their life is being subsidized by others. Whether or not those external subsidies are desirable or sustainable are intrinsically related to this problem.