5 ms·

> but in theory they need welfare checks now to survive since they probably can't justify anyone paying them $20/hr Are you implying that there are people in t

> but in theory they need welfare checks now to survive since they probably can't justify anyone paying them $20/hr Are you implying that there are people in the world who just can't do anything productive enough to be worth $20/hour? That they are so useless that this was the only thing worth doing with them? That seems fucking insane. If that's true, we have a huge problem with misallocation of value.

sokoloff 1y ago
I think it's self-evidently true that there is a not ignorable group of people who can't create enough value to be worth being paid $20/hr (plus the employer-paid overheads) and have that be something that an employer would voluntarily do. Around 10% of the population does not score highly enough on the ASVAB (an aptitude test for the military) to qualify for military service. The military, like any large employer, has an awful lot of jobs that require minimal skills and aptitude and for 10% to be Category V [unqualified for military service] based on aptitude, I would expect they wouldn't be the employees to create $20+/hr in value for private sector or other government employers either.
- delusional 1y ago
  Ohh no, it's Jordan Peterson. Not every job is the military. Most jobs are in fact not the military. Not qualifying for military service does not render you worthless in the general economy. Furthermore, being worthless in the general economy does not render you worthless in society. I wasn't qualified for military service in my country, not because of intelligence but some physical conditions. I became a banker.
- lupusreal 1y ago
  > I think it's self-evidently true that there is a not ignorable group of people who can't create enough value to be worth being paid $20/hr (plus the employer-paid overheads Ignore the mock outrage of my sibling comment, they are uninformed. You are absolutely right that some people aren't capable of work valuable enough to pay at least the minimum wage, and in fact there are programs in place specifically to serve these people. The Fair Labor Standards Act allows qualifying employers to hire people with disabilities (including mental disabilities) for less than minimum wage. This is specifically to ensure that employment opportunities still exist for such people, who otherwise could not provide labor worth at least the minimum wage. In some cases, other state programs may pay part of the disabled workers income, effectively the state subsidizing the employment of the otherwise unemployable. The real problem I think comes from people who are able-bodied and mentally capable, with no legitimate disability, who are just unwilling to take the jobs available to them because it doesn't fit their desired lifestyle (e.g. let them be lazy and keep their hands clean.) Entry level jobs in manufacturing settings have better pay than being a cashier at a burger joint. A first time factory job for a 19 year old highschool dropout with no developed skills but a willingness to show up on time and try hard will almost always pay more than the minimum wage, but finding people who are willing to even apply to such jobs can be challenging due to perceptions of social status and entitlement. These are people who have no legitimate disability but are unfit to work due to their poor attitudes towards working. Our system doesn't accommodate them, unlike people with legitimate disabilities, because the general consensus is those people need to get bitch slapped by reality and man the fuck up.
  - cindyllm 1y ago
    [dead]
  - Workaccount2 1y ago
    The problem is that people don't understand that it's a market that determines wages, and instead think it's a number that employers just come up with off the cuff and minimum wage is the only thing stopping them from picking $1/hr.
    - delusional 1y ago
      Don't you think it's a little unlikely that people, in this day and age, with the current political climate in the west, don't "understand that it's a market". I think it's extremely unlikely. I think it's more likely (because that's what I'm doing, and I expect others to do the same) that we are rejecting your market based framing, because it unnecessarily restricts good political action. I understand that wage can be viewed through the lens of the labor market, even Karl Marx knew that. I just don't think that's a very important or useful lens to view it through. It's much like viewing political climate action, or product safety action, through the lens of the "market". You can do it, it's just not very useful for setting public policy. The "labor market" didn't get children out of the factories, restrictions on that market did.
    - lupusreal 1y ago
      Right. They also fail to understand that many low end jobs only provide very marginal value to companies and could easily be eliminated if the minimum wage exceeds that value. For instance, baggers at grocery stores hired as a convienence to shoppers and to speed up checkouts. But this is only very marginal value; customers and cashiers can do the bagging themselves and the negative side of that is only very slight to the business. It's an easy job to eliminate first, many stores these days don't have one. Low minimum wages create more jobs like this, which are good jobs for teenagers or people with intellectual disabilities. Lowering the minimum wage for people with disabilities creates more jobs for people with disabilities, demonstrating the whole point. Higher minimum wage price less capable labor out of jobs.
  - 1y ago
nradov 1y ago
There are a significant number of people with developmental conditions such as Fetal Alcohol Syndrome or Down's Syndrome who, realistically, are never going to be capable of generating $20/hr of economic value. The higher we raise the minimum wage, the more of those people we condemn to permanent dependence on government aid.
- delusional 1y ago
  Where I live we solve this in part with state sponsored offsets in wages. If you hire a person with a medically diagnosed handicap, you get some of the wages back from the government. That way they aren't "dependent on government aid". They get to work for a fair comparable wage, avoid having to deal with too much additional paperwork, and don't have to be constantly faced with a stigma of being worth less. They are treated equally, and the employer gets to handle their crap on the back end. It's not some insurmountable gotcha to drag people with a handicap into the conversation.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- nobody9999 1y ago
  >The higher we raise the minimum wage, the more of those people we condemn to permanent dependence on government aid. Condemn? You mean take care of the least among us, which is, as many have observed, a KPI for a just society.
  - nradov 1y ago
    I support caring for those who can't care for themselves, but most people want to be able to make a positive contribution. Being taken care of is humiliating.
    - nobody9999 1y ago
      >I support caring for those who can't care for themselves, but most people want to be able to make a positive contribution. Being taken care of is humiliating. And so in your ideal world, if they can make a positive contribution, just not enough to live on, we can let them live on the street? Having a "Let them eat cake"[0] moment, are we? Who is to say that folks being subsidized because they don't have the means or wherewithal to support themselves can't make a positive contribution? Does that contribution have to be that they mop floors, clean toilets or flip burgers? Perhaps they might contribute positively to society in other ways, just perhaps not those that have monetary (and ones that don't allow them to pay rent or eat healthy at that) rewards? You know what's humiliating? Living on the street. Rooting through garbage cans to find food to eat. Having to listen to wealthy, entitled folks tell them they're worth less than everyone else and that they should be happy that they're "contributing" to get scraps from their tables. Forcing those with nothing to jump through hoops just to feed themselves and their children. Those things are much more humiliating than getting a helping hand to make ends meet so one can have a roof and electricity and maybe even food. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake

sokoloff 1y ago

I think it's self-evidently true that there is a not ignorable group of people who can't create enough value to be worth being paid $20/hr (plus the employer-paid overheads) and have that be something that an employer would voluntarily do. Around 10% of the population does not score highly enough on the ASVAB (an aptitude test for the military) to qualify for military service. The military, like any large employer, has an awful lot of jobs that require minimal skills and aptitude and for 10% to be Category V [unqualified for military service] based on aptitude, I would expect they wouldn't be the employees to create $20+/hr in value for private sector or other government employers either.

delusional 1y ago
Ohh no, it's Jordan Peterson. Not every job is the military. Most jobs are in fact not the military. Not qualifying for military service does not render you worthless in the general economy. Furthermore, being worthless in the general economy does not render you worthless in society. I wasn't qualified for military service in my country, not because of intelligence but some physical conditions. I became a banker.
lupusreal 1y ago
> I think it's self-evidently true that there is a not ignorable group of people who can't create enough value to be worth being paid $20/hr (plus the employer-paid overheads Ignore the mock outrage of my sibling comment, they are uninformed. You are absolutely right that some people aren't capable of work valuable enough to pay at least the minimum wage, and in fact there are programs in place specifically to serve these people. The Fair Labor Standards Act allows qualifying employers to hire people with disabilities (including mental disabilities) for less than minimum wage. This is specifically to ensure that employment opportunities still exist for such people, who otherwise could not provide labor worth at least the minimum wage. In some cases, other state programs may pay part of the disabled workers income, effectively the state subsidizing the employment of the otherwise unemployable. The real problem I think comes from people who are able-bodied and mentally capable, with no legitimate disability, who are just unwilling to take the jobs available to them because it doesn't fit their desired lifestyle (e.g. let them be lazy and keep their hands clean.) Entry level jobs in manufacturing settings have better pay than being a cashier at a burger joint. A first time factory job for a 19 year old highschool dropout with no developed skills but a willingness to show up on time and try hard will almost always pay more than the minimum wage, but finding people who are willing to even apply to such jobs can be challenging due to perceptions of social status and entitlement. These are people who have no legitimate disability but are unfit to work due to their poor attitudes towards working. Our system doesn't accommodate them, unlike people with legitimate disabilities, because the general consensus is those people need to get bitch slapped by reality and man the fuck up.
- cindyllm 1y ago
  [dead]
- Workaccount2 1y ago
  The problem is that people don't understand that it's a market that determines wages, and instead think it's a number that employers just come up with off the cuff and minimum wage is the only thing stopping them from picking $1/hr.
  - delusional 1y ago
    Don't you think it's a little unlikely that people, in this day and age, with the current political climate in the west, don't "understand that it's a market". I think it's extremely unlikely. I think it's more likely (because that's what I'm doing, and I expect others to do the same) that we are rejecting your market based framing, because it unnecessarily restricts good political action. I understand that wage can be viewed through the lens of the labor market, even Karl Marx knew that. I just don't think that's a very important or useful lens to view it through. It's much like viewing political climate action, or product safety action, through the lens of the "market". You can do it, it's just not very useful for setting public policy. The "labor market" didn't get children out of the factories, restrictions on that market did.
  - lupusreal 1y ago
    Right. They also fail to understand that many low end jobs only provide very marginal value to companies and could easily be eliminated if the minimum wage exceeds that value. For instance, baggers at grocery stores hired as a convienence to shoppers and to speed up checkouts. But this is only very marginal value; customers and cashiers can do the bagging themselves and the negative side of that is only very slight to the business. It's an easy job to eliminate first, many stores these days don't have one. Low minimum wages create more jobs like this, which are good jobs for teenagers or people with intellectual disabilities. Lowering the minimum wage for people with disabilities creates more jobs for people with disabilities, demonstrating the whole point. Higher minimum wage price less capable labor out of jobs.
- 1y ago

nradov 1y ago

There are a significant number of people with developmental conditions such as Fetal Alcohol Syndrome or Down's Syndrome who, realistically, are never going to be capable of generating $20/hr of economic value. The higher we raise the minimum wage, the more of those people we condemn to permanent dependence on government aid.

delusional 1y ago
Where I live we solve this in part with state sponsored offsets in wages. If you hire a person with a medically diagnosed handicap, you get some of the wages back from the government. That way they aren't "dependent on government aid". They get to work for a fair comparable wage, avoid having to deal with too much additional paperwork, and don't have to be constantly faced with a stigma of being worth less. They are treated equally, and the employer gets to handle their crap on the back end. It's not some insurmountable gotcha to drag people with a handicap into the conversation.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
nobody9999 1y ago
>The higher we raise the minimum wage, the more of those people we condemn to permanent dependence on government aid. Condemn? You mean take care of the least among us, which is, as many have observed, a KPI for a just society.
- nradov 1y ago
  I support caring for those who can't care for themselves, but most people want to be able to make a positive contribution. Being taken care of is humiliating.
  - nobody9999 1y ago
    >I support caring for those who can't care for themselves, but most people want to be able to make a positive contribution. Being taken care of is humiliating. And so in your ideal world, if they can make a positive contribution, just not enough to live on, we can let them live on the street? Having a "Let them eat cake"[0] moment, are we? Who is to say that folks being subsidized because they don't have the means or wherewithal to support themselves can't make a positive contribution? Does that contribution have to be that they mop floors, clean toilets or flip burgers? Perhaps they might contribute positively to society in other ways, just perhaps not those that have monetary (and ones that don't allow them to pay rent or eat healthy at that) rewards? You know what's humiliating? Living on the street. Rooting through garbage cans to find food to eat. Having to listen to wealthy, entitled folks tell them they're worth less than everyone else and that they should be happy that they're "contributing" to get scraps from their tables. Forcing those with nothing to jump through hoops just to feed themselves and their children. Those things are much more humiliating than getting a helping hand to make ends meet so one can have a roof and electricity and maybe even food. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake