3 ms·
Because people chose to take the jobs, so presumably they thought it was fair compensation compared to alternatives. Unless there's evidence they were coerced i
by apitman 2y ago
Because people chose to take the jobs, so presumably they thought it was fair compensation compared to alternatives. Unless there's evidence they were coerced in some way?
Note that I'm equating all jobs here. No amount of compensation makes it worth seeing horrible things. They are separate variables.
- fluoridation 2y agoNo amount? So you wouldn't accept a job to moderate Facebook for a million dollars a day? If you would, then surely you would also do it for a lower number. There is an equilibrium point.
- apitman 2y ago> So you wouldn't accept a job to moderate Facebook for a million dollars a day? I would hope not.
- fluoridation 2y agoSorry, but I don't believe you. You could work for a month or two and retire. Or hell, just do it for one day and then return to your old job. That's a cool one mill in the bank. My point is, job shittiness can be priced in.
- lalalali 2y ago> work for a month or two and retire --> This is a dream of many, but there exist a set of people that really like their job and have no intention to retire > just do it for one day and then return to your old job. --> Cool mill in the bank and dreadful images in your head. Perhaps Apitman feels he has enough cash and wont be happier with a million (more?). Also your point is true but lacks of Facebook interest to elevate that number. I guess it was more a theorical reflexion than an argument for concrete economie.