3 ms·

That person deserves what the market pays for people with that particularly low skill set. It's not totally up to me. Maybe I live in an area where wages are

by crusso 14y ago

That person deserves what the market pays for people with that particularly low skill set. It's not totally up to me. Maybe I live in an area where wages are really high. In that case, I'm going to have to pay the going rate for someone with low skills. "living wages" are crap. They completely ignore the fact that some workers are young or spousal dependents looking for that part-time job to earn a little money. On top of that there is no such thing as a "living wage" that can be defined. If I'm living alone, young, healthy, and not real picky about my lifestyle -- a living wage can be $1000 per month. If I'm married with 5 kids and in need of constant medical care, a living wage is 6X higher. Yet you're implying that I as an employer with my available job for someone to push a friggin' button has to worry about all that or at very least accept someone's opinion on the lowest common denominator living wage? At that point, I say screw the high school kid or part-time mom looking to earn a little extra money pushing the button. I automate the whole damned thing and eliminate the job. That, my friend, is called the "unintended consequence" of your heavy handed approach of controlling every little perceived injustice.

Nursie 14y ago
"That person deserves what the market pays for people with that particularly low skill set" So I'm right, you do consider this a moral issue, you think that the free market is the be-all and end-all of morality and that people only 'deserve' what you deign to hand to them. "Yet you're implying that I as an employer with my available job for someone to push a friggin' button has to worry about all that or at very least accept someone's opinion on the lowest common denominator living wage?" You're the one that came up with the dumb button example. Sounds like you don't really need someone to press the button anyway. If it was vital to your operations you'd be prepared to pay decently as it's not you've made a saving. Good for you. "At that point, I say screw the high school kid or part-time mom looking to earn a little extra money pushing the button. I automate the whole damned thing and eliminate the job. That, my friend, is called the "unintended consequence" of your heavy handed approach of controlling every little perceived injustice." If that is the price paid to get hundreds of other people off the government teat and stop subsidising the labour needs of you and your company, awesome. That high school kid misses out but his dad, who does more than press a button and generates more than ten times his pay packet for the company he labours for, gets to put food on the table. This is not an unintended consequence at all.
- JoeAltmaier 14y ago
  A free market does not operate as a moral system. If you want to inject morals, price-fixing and wage-fixing are especially miserable ways to do it. The free market responds, often in ways you don't anticipate, and your social experiment goes weirdly sideways.
  - Nursie 14y ago
    "A free market does not operate as a moral system." I didn't bring morals into this, you'll notice the no-minimum-wage guy is the one that started bringing 'deserves' into this. I was talking about getting people off government support by making employers pay enough for workers to live on. "If you want to inject morals, price-fixing and wage-fixing are especially miserable ways to do it." Seems to work OK in a bunch of places. "The free market responds, often in ways you don't anticipate, and your social experiment goes weirdly sideways." The free market is a myth.
    - crusso 14y ago
      Seems to work OK in a bunch of places. Most economists disagree vehemently with you.
      - Nursie 14y ago
        [Citation Needed] Also, what do economists know? Where were they in the buildup to the '08 crash? Nowhere to be seen, that's where.
        crusso 14y ago
        I guess economists are to blame because you weren't paying attention and you can't even be bothered to use Google to educate yourself. http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-white-house-warned-congress-about-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-17-times-in-2008-alone/ http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-white-house-warn... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM Economists were warning of the housing bubble from the beginning of the decade. Republicans were warning of the problems with fannie/freddie from as early as 2002.

by crusso 14y ago

Nursie 14y ago

"That person deserves what the market pays for people with that particularly low skill set" So I'm right, you do consider this a moral issue, you think that the free market is the be-all and end-all of morality and that people only 'deserve' what you deign to hand to them. "Yet you're implying that I as an employer with my available job for someone to push a friggin' button has to worry about all that or at very least accept someone's opinion on the lowest common denominator living wage?" You're the one that came up with the dumb button example. Sounds like you don't really need someone to press the button anyway. If it was vital to your operations you'd be prepared to pay decently as it's not you've made a saving. Good for you. "At that point, I say screw the high school kid or part-time mom looking to earn a little extra money pushing the button. I automate the whole damned thing and eliminate the job. That, my friend, is called the "unintended consequence" of your heavy handed approach of controlling every little perceived injustice." If that is the price paid to get hundreds of other people off the government teat and stop subsidising the labour needs of you and your company, awesome. That high school kid misses out but his dad, who does more than press a button and generates more than ten times his pay packet for the company he labours for, gets to put food on the table. This is not an unintended consequence at all.

JoeAltmaier 14y ago
A free market does not operate as a moral system. If you want to inject morals, price-fixing and wage-fixing are especially miserable ways to do it. The free market responds, often in ways you don't anticipate, and your social experiment goes weirdly sideways.
- Nursie 14y ago
  "A free market does not operate as a moral system." I didn't bring morals into this, you'll notice the no-minimum-wage guy is the one that started bringing 'deserves' into this. I was talking about getting people off government support by making employers pay enough for workers to live on. "If you want to inject morals, price-fixing and wage-fixing are especially miserable ways to do it." Seems to work OK in a bunch of places. "The free market responds, often in ways you don't anticipate, and your social experiment goes weirdly sideways." The free market is a myth.
  - crusso 14y ago
    Seems to work OK in a bunch of places. Most economists disagree vehemently with you.
    - Nursie 14y ago
      [Citation Needed] Also, what do economists know? Where were they in the buildup to the '08 crash? Nowhere to be seen, that's where.
      - crusso 14y ago
        I guess economists are to blame because you weren't paying attention and you can't even be bothered to use Google to educate yourself. http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-white-house-warned-congress-about-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-17-times-in-2008-alone/ http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-white-house-warn... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM Economists were warning of the housing bubble from the beginning of the decade. Republicans were warning of the problems with fannie/freddie from as early as 2002.