201–210 of 419 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It looks like you’re both arguing for the same thing: a higher federal minimum wage.
That's a leap, for sure. I am not arguing for a higher minimum wage. I didn't mention minimum wage, even obliquely. I am arguing that it is correct to demonize companies for their labor practices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The market" is not intelligent, moral, or nice to people. "The market" decided that slaves are a pretty efficient way of farming. You can hate the game not the player, but the player is still responsible at some point.
Slavery was by definition the opposite of a market system, because the government enforced a system where people were not free to choose whether to provide their services in return for compensation.
Or to put it another way, "the market" may decide that the optional strategy is when you have no voice and are an obedient resource. In that case your opinion about it being the opposite of a market system doesn't matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the compensation should reflect the confluence of supply and demand in the market. Why?
Because it is no person’s place to compel, using violence, two consenting adults to alter an agreement between them to which they both voluntarily consent and that harms no third party.
Just a little reminder that many workers in fact do not get treated well just because their company thinks they do.
I think it should also be noted that the best way to show an employer that they need to do better is supply and demand, quitting entirely and working for someone else is not only more effective than simply demonstrating or slacking off, it’s also many magnitudes more professional and better for your career.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that workers in this position are getting squeezed by opposing forces. On the top you have automation. They have jobs because they cost less than robots. But every wage increase or company benefit or break that reduces worker productivity is a step closer to cost parity with automation, and therefore the unemployment line. On the other side, they can move away from that line by accepting lower pay or w…
It’s more like blaming the local power company for local energy prices. Nobody is blaming Amazon for wages worldwide. They’re blaming Amazon for the wages of their own workers. And why not? “The market” isn’t a magic answer here. The market provides a floor on wages, not a ceiling. If Amazon pays below market wages, they won’t get enough workers. If Amazon pays above market wages, nothing bad happens aside from reduc…
You put your finger on the thing that bothers me most about the free-market critique of labor conditions. They all hand-wave away the responsibility that corporations have as entities run by (presumably) empathetic humans. Amazon does not have to automate away jobs instead of giving workers fairer conditions and wages. In fact, they may find that the boost in productivity that comes from happier, more rested, more focused workers more than makes up for the marginal decrease that comes from less pressure in the workplace.
The point is that we don't have to accept that corporations are, and should be, perfectly "rational" economic actors. They don't have to pursue profits at every conceivable avenue unless the market tells them otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or you just raise the minimum wage. We arrived at this point because those with money use it to influence government to their exclusive benefit.
Demand curves have negative slopes. The esoteric reading of minimum wage is it is a accelerationist policy aimed at subsidizing automation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that workers in this position are getting squeezed by opposing forces. On the top you have automation. They have jobs because they cost less than robots. But every wage increase or company benefit or break that reduces worker productivity is a step closer to cost parity with automation, and therefore the unemployment line. On the other side, they can move away from that line by accepting lower pay or w…
It’s more like blaming the local power company for local energy prices. Nobody is blaming Amazon for wages worldwide. They’re blaming Amazon for the wages of their own workers. And why not? “The market” isn’t a magic answer here. The market provides a floor on wages, not a ceiling. If Amazon pays below market wages, they won’t get enough workers. If Amazon pays above market wages, nothing bad happens aside from reduc…
Take their average annual profit from retail divided by number of employees and see for yourself what the difference in hourly wage would be.
To pay significantly more they would have to raise prices, which they can't do because they're in competition with Walmart and everyone else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also did this and have younger friends who still do. I much preferred that job to a customer service one where I had to deal with angry people all day. I was also sorting via zip codes and enjoyed the physical work... I don't understand what people accepting a factory job expect. It is repetitive, non-creative, work. That is the idea.
I'm sure they expect it to be miserable, but expecting a miserable job and being happy about it needn't align. They might not have the necessary skills to be employable in not-miserable work, and might not have the necessary means or time to acquire those skills. What it ultimately comes down to, I think, is: we have enough wealth as a society that if we wanted to, we could allocate resources and labor in such a way…
We do exactly that every day. Price discovery in the market is the result of collective actions that determine if a tradeoff is worth it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When this was science fiction it was assumed we could all work less, not fewer people working more for less pay.
That would require everyone to own a robot, but most people do not have the foresight to purchase one or involve their money in such a thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that workers in this position are getting squeezed by opposing forces. On the top you have automation. They have jobs because they cost less than robots. But every wage increase or company benefit or break that reduces worker productivity is a step closer to cost parity with automation, and therefore the unemployment line. On the other side, they can move away from that line by accepting lower pay or w…
It’s more like blaming the local power company for local energy prices. Nobody is blaming Amazon for wages worldwide. They’re blaming Amazon for the wages of their own workers. And why not? “The market” isn’t a magic answer here. The market provides a floor on wages, not a ceiling. If Amazon pays below market wages, they won’t get enough workers. If Amazon pays above market wages, nothing bad happens aside from reduc…
If society does it through taxation, it's everyone's responsibility.
If only certain companies are responsible, then only a portion of the population is responsible.