Message from @Dr.Cosby

Discord ID: 603907928105287698


2019-07-25 09:45:48 UTC  

spastic confirmed

2019-07-25 09:46:17 UTC  

all of us civilised nations have a minimum wage that is indexed to inflation

2019-07-25 09:46:25 UTC  

and you're stuck paying your own people pennies

2019-07-25 09:46:47 UTC  

making them eat shit from the ground and pray for the almighty government to bestow them with supplementary food stamps

2019-07-25 11:10:07 UTC  

Literally, what is the point of a "minimum wage" if it's not enough for people to live a comfortable life?

2019-07-25 11:10:24 UTC  

Everyone has a different perception of what is "comfortable", sure.

2019-07-25 11:11:07 UTC  

But I think it's not so difficult to settle on some common sense metrics (like not working 40+ hours per week, just to make ends meet)

2019-07-25 11:11:10 UTC  

the minimum required to survive based on the cost of living... usually means minimum wage

2019-07-25 11:11:32 UTC  

the living wage is different

2019-07-25 11:11:51 UTC  

Yes, people are prone to take advantage of wiggle room - and people are prone to overspending and living out of their means.

2019-07-25 11:12:07 UTC  

tbh i'm against minimum wage

2019-07-25 11:12:13 UTC  

or a living wage

2019-07-25 11:12:15 UTC  

or benefits

2019-07-25 11:12:34 UTC  

Does it make sense that people who work as hard (or harder) than others get paid less?

2019-07-25 11:12:37 UTC  

food stamps i'm happy with

2019-07-25 11:12:58 UTC  

The Walmart CEO isn't working thousands of times harder than his employees.

2019-07-25 11:13:06 UTC  

Why is he getting paid thousands of times more?

2019-07-25 11:13:08 UTC  

@Dr.Cosby you mean in a hierarchical sense?

2019-07-25 11:13:23 UTC  

he's more valuable to the company in theory

2019-07-25 11:13:28 UTC  

i.e. there's only 1 ceo

2019-07-25 11:14:30 UTC  

I understand that market conditions regulate salary (for the most part) - if the CEO wasn't "worth" that much, the company (or board of directors or stockholders or w/e) should be able to find a cheaper employee, right?

2019-07-25 11:14:51 UTC  

But somehow this doesn't end up working so well

2019-07-25 11:15:12 UTC  

In fact, it ends up working in a disgusting and immoral manner

2019-07-25 11:15:38 UTC  

I'm not a specialist on the matter, but you don't have to be to see how bad it is

2019-07-25 11:16:49 UTC  

I think ultimately, people in those positions get there due to pure luck. Whether through family connections (as is usual) or other means

2019-07-25 11:17:01 UTC  

of course there's a massive imbalance and its only been increasing

2019-07-25 11:17:08 UTC  

so they need to moderate CEO pay

2019-07-25 11:17:16 UTC  

whether one can enforce that or not

2019-07-25 11:17:18 UTC  

...

2019-07-25 11:17:21 UTC  

difficult

2019-07-25 11:17:36 UTC  

Okay, so minimum wage is a different topic? I mean, it sort of is

2019-07-25 11:17:58 UTC  

But if you start regulating the "upper bound" on what is a reasonable wage for certain positions, why not a "lower bound"?

2019-07-25 11:17:58 UTC  

GG @Dr.Cosby, you just advanced to level 3!

2019-07-25 11:18:48 UTC  

If it's ridiculous for a CEO to earn thousands of times what his employees earn, isn't it ridiculous for employees to earn not enough to...live?

2019-07-25 11:19:06 UTC  

i think they are two different issues

2019-07-25 11:19:24 UTC  

Perhaps you have a more fancy version of fixing the problem

2019-07-25 11:19:38 UTC  

regulating CEO pay does not impact a large proportion of the lower skilled workers

2019-07-25 11:19:58 UTC  

in the way that minimum wage goes

2019-07-25 11:20:17 UTC  

But without overhauling quite a few systems, I don't see a better solution than increasing minimum wage (both to compensate for inflation, as well as realistic economic opportunities in the places where they live)

2019-07-25 11:20:47 UTC  

Yeah, simply cutting CEO pay isn't going to do much, sure

2019-07-25 11:20:49 UTC  

increasing wages artificially doesn't solve anything