3 ms·

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-pa

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

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