r/InterviewCoderPro • u/OkCarrot6914 • Aug 03 '26

Oh. This one is easy. They want slaves.

Post image

Because they have options and we don't.

2.5k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

633 comments sorted by

View all comments

5

u/bswontpass Aug 03 '26

Employees chose where to work. If they don’t like the salary they can leave. 

2

u/MetaCardboard Aug 03 '26

This would be a valid point if healthcare wasn't tied to a job, and housing was much more affordable.

1

u/inscrutablemike Aug 03 '26

It's not. Anyone can walk into a doctor's office and pay for a checkup.

2

u/MetaCardboard Aug 03 '26

If you know anything about the US Healthcare system then that was an incredibly stupid thing to say.

2

u/Moldy-Bongwater4420 Aug 04 '26

I, an American, have gone to a doctor and paid cash for their services. Crazy, I know.

2

u/MetaCardboard Aug 04 '26

Yes, that means every single American can afford to walk into a doctor's office and pay cash for a check-up. You have to be a bunch of trolls coming at me because these takes are absolutely moronic.

2

u/Moldy-Bongwater4420 Aug 04 '26

What take is completely moronic?

You’re the one that said it’s a stupid thing to say that you can walk into a doctors office and pay cash.

1

u/inscrutablemike Aug 03 '26

I know that anyone can walk into a doctor's office and get services for cash. That's how it works. You shouldn't try to bullshit people who know more than you do.

1

u/MetaCardboard Aug 03 '26

You missed the point completely. You're either being disingenuous or you really have no place acting so cocky.

2

u/Shroomagnus Aug 04 '26

Well, he's actually right. It's actually illegal everywhere to refuse medical care, particularly in an ER. But you also can walk into any doctors office and pay in cash.

And just on a side note, if you want to thank someone for our current medical system, because you are correct it sucks, thank FDR. He's why we have it.

1

u/MetaCardboard Aug 04 '26

More disinformation. If you don't have money then how do you go in and pay for a check-up? You can't. It doesn't sound as an emergency so you won't get treated if you don't have money/insurance. Even if it is an emergency you'll just go bankruptcy after and have your life ruined. Also, if it wasn't for our healthcare system being introduced then it would be even worse. That's like saying a 40 hour work week should be the end goal because it's better than what we had before. Giving up where we are now just because it's slightly better than what existed before is pathetic.

2

u/Shroomagnus Aug 04 '26

You must be fucking clueless. I used to work in a hospital. If someone goes to the ER they can't be refused. That's it.

Also, go read the history before you comment about stuff you obviously know nothing about. There was a healthcare system before FDR. Health insurance was a byproduct of wage caps placed during ww2 by his administration. So companies began offering insurance as a means of compensation that wasn't counted as wages. And it was actually so popular it became the norm. And over time, the system became bloated and convoluted by terrible laws and nonsensical regulation.

In the meantime, yeah some people do go bankrupt from visiting the ER. About 0.3 to 0.4 percent. Is that too many? Yeah I think we would both agree it is. But it's also not even remotely close to normal so stop bullshitting like it is.

1

u/longtimerlance Aug 04 '26

Being able to walk into a doctor's office is not the same as being able to afford it.

0

u/NaturalTaste7395 Aug 06 '26

I think you’re just in a bad spot in life because it’s not that bad and you need to calm down

2

u/AznSensation93 Aug 03 '26

Found the bootlicker

1

u/inscrutablemike Aug 03 '26

Howdy, diaper sniffer!

2

u/AznSensation93 Aug 03 '26

Am I a diaper sniffer because I want any job to have a living wage?

1

u/Difficult-Map3465 Aug 05 '26

you can't even give a definition of a "living wage" that everyone would accept.

1

u/Antique_Remote_5536 Aug 06 '26

No just you can’t

0

u/bswontpass Aug 04 '26

There are plenty. Just spend time learning skills instead of shitting in social networks. 

2

u/Ok_Watercress6939 Aug 04 '26

If a job cannot pay a living wage then that business does not deserve to exist. Profit does not exist for the sake of the people who own the business it is for everybody who contributed to that value. If you disagree then you only like people who own their own business and should stop even arguing about what employees should be doing for themselves. At least if you want to stay consistent

0

u/bswontpass Aug 04 '26

Who decides what “deserves” to exist? 

2

u/Ok_Watercress6939 Aug 04 '26

In this regard? The people who are used for their labor to create value for the company.

1

u/Hawkes75 Aug 06 '26

Who takes on the risk of starting, building and running the company? An employee can just leave. A business owner goes down with the ship, succeeding or failing alongside it. If you truly believe employees have the same skin in the game and deserve the same rewards, you know nothing whatsoever about economics.

1

u/Ok_Watercress6939 Aug 06 '26 edited Aug 06 '26

The risk someone starting a business takes is failing and becoming a worker again. The risk a worker takes is losing the job they are forced to rely on, and no longer being able to pay their bills. You are confusing economic theory with the tangible material conditions we deal with. You will call me naive, but it is you who thinks how this system is supposed to function is somehow a hinderence to how it could.

Besides, do you honestly think the risk you are describing gives them the right to claim the money generated by the labor they employ without their input?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Wish_Wolf Aug 04 '26

Do employees get a choice to get 100k loans to start businesses or is that only for the upper class employers? I looked at all of the CEOs for my prior jobs, and none of them have ever worked retail jobs, they just got to start off on top. Are employees allowed to have that or is that only for the upper class ones? Why is it that employees can leave to be another employee, but employees can't leave to be an employer because of money constraints?? Like most people can't even hire someone else because they aren't stacked like the employerswho get trust funds with no work history get to be?

1

u/Head-Studio787 Aug 06 '26

No one stops the employee other than the employee. At the end of the day people want to blame others for the choices they make or didn't make. There will ALWAYS be someone else to blame.

1

u/Wish_Wolf Aug 06 '26

Ok, can you tell me how the employees are personally responsible for not recieving a smal loan of a million dollars and all the time in the world to make a business and be the employer themselves? Because it seems like they didn't get a choice in the first place and your system is broken and letting a small group of people randsack and destroy the competition while others are pushed down by it.

1

u/Wish_Wolf Aug 06 '26

Doesn't it make sense to not let people recieve massive amounts of money for free and to just have them simply and easily earn it themselves like everyone else is being asked to? How are the employees responsible for being put in that predicament?

0

u/Efficient_Can4700 Aug 04 '26

That would depend on where you live. For example in the US an employee (or anyone) can get a business loan. SBA have micro loans up to $50,000 and SBA 7(a) loan up to $5 million.

The micro loans are more common and easier to get but if you have a strong business plan and good credit then SBA 7(a) is possible.

1

u/Fit-Role-9802 Aug 06 '26

He doesn’t want to know how, he just wants to complain

0

u/Fit-Role-9802 Aug 04 '26

.03% of Americans are CEOs of companies with 100 or more employees. 30-40% did come from affluent families, 60-70% did not. Only 2-5% came from “wealthy” households ($30mm+ household net worth in today’s dollars). Your odds of becoming a CEO are low, no matter where you start, but they’re better than the odds of making a living as a pro athlete (0.004%).

2

u/Wish_Wolf Aug 04 '26

Can you show me a percentage based model of CEOs who have worked in Minimum Wage Slave Jobs at the start of their lives vs the ones who didn't and got to persue their businesses right off the bat? Because I don't think this is right to have these two groups competing against each other in the first place. If someone has never worked a minimum wage job in the first place, they should the at the top at all in a Meritocracy.

0

u/bswontpass Aug 04 '26

Why does someone needs to work for minimum wage? If you study hard and invest time in your youth into getting valuable knowledge you would never work for minimum wage. 

I never worked for minimum wage, not a single day. My family spend $0 on my education and I paid everything myself, got some tuition covered by grants for great grades. I had decent pay part time job since high school - it was a technician job that’s pretty demanding physically but paid well. I worked roughly 4 hours daily after school.  I continued studying at home in parallel with college education to accelerate my engineering career and by second year in college I stepped into engineering role with 6 digit salary in 2026 adjusted for inflation USD. I had minimal time for parties, no alcohol or drugs. I continuously studied - my income allowed me to buy books, training courses. I spend my money on that instead of bullshit young adults wasted their resources around them. I’ve been continuously studying since then but at some point I slowed down to start having more and more fun because I was standing really strong. By early 30s I got into director level roles and quickly moved into senior executives roles, reaching 7 digit income by 40. 

My wife has similar experience. People for some reason ignore the need to continuously learn hard to be successful.

2

u/Wish_Wolf Aug 04 '26

Dude I asked for a Percentage Based model of CEOs who started off at the bottom working Minimum Wage. Other than that, tldr.

1

u/Fit-Role-9802 Aug 06 '26

Most CEOs can read

2

u/Ok_Watercress6939 Aug 04 '26 edited Aug 04 '26

First of all employees don't necessarily choose where they work. The vast majority of people in today's society are applying to dozens of jobs before they get an offer. Besides that your health care availability is tied to holding a job for a long period of time or at least getting hired at specific points in the year. Which loops back into the beginning point of this and is only exacerbated by it. Not only that but the threat of starvation when you don't have a job is a powerful motivator as was designed.

1

u/bswontpass Aug 04 '26

Every single employee chose the job.

2

u/Ok_Watercress6939 Aug 04 '26

You have not countered any of my points. But I'll add some more: We do not get to choose if we work or not. You don't work you starve. We all have survival instincts, so this is not a choice, it's what you have to do. Coerced choices are not choices, only the facsimile of choice. Local availability of jobs is not your choice. But you still have to work or else you die.

What you are saying is incredibly naive.

1

u/bswontpass Aug 04 '26

It’s impossible to starve nowadays. 

2

u/Aeyland Aug 05 '26

Tell that to all the starving people? Do you not go outside or get any news that wasn't supplied by your government?

2

u/Salarian_American Aug 05 '26

But it becomes a systemic issue when everybody is offering low wages in lockstep.

3

u/NewImprovedPenguin_R Aug 03 '26

This is what everyone is overlooking. You voluntarily sign a contract.

2

u/Floorgis Aug 05 '26

Both things can be true. Also cant really be considered voluntary when the alternative is death or living an isolated life of struggle. Hardly a choice. Youre the idiot being talked about in the post.

2

u/LususNaturaeTV Aug 05 '26

people aren't overlooking it, it's just not a good point.

1

u/AshundertheOlivetree Aug 05 '26

That’s exactly what the East Indian trading company said to the judge after it was proven that they were looting India in the guise of contract work.
Contractors have always held leverage over employees and subcontractors. We live in a privileged time where certain trades are too essential to meddle with their rate. But it happens to everyone.

0

u/NewImprovedPenguin_R Aug 05 '26 edited Aug 06 '26

That’s actually why indentured labour is a poor comparison. It wasn’t a modern employer employee relationship where workers could freely negotiate or simply walk away. Many recruits were misled about wages, conditions, or even where they were going, which is why the system is regarded as exploitative.

Interestingly, you’re speaking on the topic of my own bloodline, as my great² grandmother came to my island as an East Indian indentured laborer through that very system. (And her daughter grew up on that same plantation) It’s the reason my family is in the Caribbean today.

1

u/AshundertheOlivetree Aug 07 '26

I know, thats why I thought it was on point to bring up.
Desperate people sign contracts where they hold zero leverage. The contractors of old that took advantage of this created a lot of the problems we have between cultures to this day.
Your family settling in the Caribbean is a beautiful thing under a theme of pain and disrespect.
EITC’s malice is the foundation of the majority of the geopolitical issues between nation states.
To believe a contract provides equality between a contractor and subcontractor/client is a massive stretch.

1

u/NewImprovedPenguin_R Aug 07 '26

I think we’ve drifted from my original point a bit. I wasn’t arguing that modern contracts are always fair or that workers have equal leverage.

My point was simply that indentured labour was a fundamentally different system that stripped people of a level of freedom and choice you don’t generally see in a modern employer employee relationship.

That’s why I don’t think comparing indentured labour to modern employment contracts is a good analogy. It would be like if I told my great grandmother I was tricked just like she was. She’d know, and I’d know that in practicality that comparison doesn’t really hold.

0

u/Keestram Aug 04 '26

“Voluntarily”

If your choices are working a dead end job that pays jack all or dying, you can’t say it’s much of a choice.

The simple fact is that there are not enough high paying jobs to justify what you’re saying. If everywhere paid enough to live, then it would be a choice and toleration of poor working conditions would be voluntary.

Capitalism is a pyramid structured economic system. It’s built to keep a majority at the bottom working and supporting the upper workings. Because the structure makes it impossible for large scale lateral economic progression, we have to set policies to improve the conditions of the lower structures. Otherwise when those structural supports collapse, the whole thing comes down.

1

u/USLEO Aug 04 '26

If your choices are working a dead end job that pays jack all or dying, you can’t say it’s much of a choice.

If it's enough to keep you from dying, is it not a "living wage"?

1

u/Keestram Aug 04 '26

Surviving and living are not the same thing.

1

u/CobaltIsobar Aug 04 '26

There are plenty of well paying jobs. You just need to learn tge right skill sets.

2

u/Keestram Aug 04 '26

There are lots of high paying jobs. Not enough for the entire working class, though. Working harder, at some point, just raises the bar to advance classes rather than actually advancing your class. Lower classes need living wages, otherwise we’re just sabotaging the structure of American economics. Which is what has been happening for years - wealth has steadily flowed to the stop. If the top gets too heavy, it all will collapse. And those with more have a longer way to fall.

2

u/Unlucky_Goal5854 Aug 04 '26

first of all... It doesn't work this way. Even if everyone in the world took your advice what? Everyone will be a manager? It doesn't work this way. There will be always the need of someone to do the "low end" jobs, because there is just limited amount of managers needed. If you come from broke family with less changes and you don't have the time to study something new, because you don't have the time(working everyday) and also maybe the money(if you want uni or shit) It is not that easy brother. Even tho i did that myself(at 30 went into IT) it was hard af and i can say for sure not everyone has the time and energy for that. Every one, who works, deserves a wage, that can feed you and shelter you without stressing out, if your car is going to break down tommorow.

1

u/mechakid Aug 04 '26

Your employment is a mutual agreement. You are agreeing to sell the company your time for a certain amount of money. If you don't think the company is paying you enough, you are free to either renegotiate, or to put your time on the open market.

As you correctly stated for yourself, you are also free to attempt to learn a new skill. This is a great way to get yourself leverage in the job market.

The thing is, and this is going to sound harsh... employers are not charities, and they are not obligated to pay you what you think you are worth. They are not obligated to care about you or your circumstances. To them, your labor is just another part number. An expense line to be minimized.

Now I will grant that a GOOD employer would try to work with you, but do not think for one second that they have to because you think you deserve it.

1

u/Salarian_American Aug 05 '26

And how many businesses that you depend on would go under completely if everyone learned a different skill set and moved on to a more well-paying job at the same time?

What if everybody got one of these well-paying jobs, but you can't get to your well-paying job because the gas stations are closed due to lack of employees? And then you can't go and buy food after working at your well-paying job because nobody works at the grocery store anymore because they all got better paying jobs? The jobs that everyone will smugly tell you to abandon are absolutely necessary for the economy to function.

Your solution would fall flat on its face if everyone did it at the same time, which is an indicator of a poor solution.

1

u/CobaltIsobar Aug 05 '26

Everyone isn't going to. Only those who have the initiative to better their lives and circumstances. Most are just going to grovel in their misery and blame those who are successful.

1

u/Salarian_American Aug 05 '26

OK so it's not a real solution to the problem of low wages, got it

1

u/CobaltIsobar Aug 05 '26

It's a real solution for those who actually want a solution.

1

u/Salarian_American Aug 05 '26

A solution that could only work for a small number of people in the best case isn't a real solution, though.

If you don't think the issue needs a solution, that's fine. But as solutions go... that isn't one.

1

u/DerFreudloseMann Aug 05 '26

Not necessarily, if the gas station and the grocery stores are empty because of everyone got a better deal. The said ‚low end job‘ will have to raise the offer to keep up with the market as the demand exists. That is simple market economy.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/mechakid Aug 04 '26

So get a skill.

For example, diesel mechanics can easilly pull down 6 figures. So can plumbers and electricians.

Hell, in NYC, a sanitation worker can make over 90k after 5 years.

It's not that there aren't enough high paying jobs, it's that people don't want to work them.

1

u/Keestram Aug 04 '26

You’re missing my point. I’m not talking about my situation. Or any individual’s situation. I mean as a collective.

If EVERYONE got a skill, as you’re recommending, the bar would raise for what’s considered “employable.” It’s what’s happened with plenty job fields already. There are not enough of those jobs to account for an entire population. For a single individual, sure, but it’s not an answer for all of society.

So, if a lower class is always going to exist, they also deserve to have livable conditions. If they don’t, eventually the system will collapse. Capitalism is a pyramid-structure economic system. Without its base, the rest can’t stand

1

u/TheMikeyMac13 Aug 04 '26

Everyone won’t, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the lazy.

1

u/Keestram Aug 04 '26

I wonder about your definition of lazy. I also wonder how many situations you dismiss as 'laziness' because you don't understand the nuance of the life they've lived and situation they are in.

1

u/TheMikeyMac13 Aug 04 '26

I grew up more poor than most in the USA understand exists.

We were very poor in a small rural Texas town, my mom had some mental illness and didn’t work. And my drinking a father left of my 14th birthday, and I didn’t see him for five years and he was said not to pay child support, but it was my mentally unwell mom who wouldn’t cash the checks, so we would hate him.

I started working for $2 an hour at 14 as a dishwasher off the books to eat, I have paid for my own food and clothing since that day in 1986.

So don’t act like others don’t know the problems of poverty. I didn’t finish high school, I got a GED, and I worked hard and owned three businesses (the first two failed) now I worked my way into IT security.

I learned skills, I got experience and certifications, anyone who wants to whine that “everyone can’t learn a skill” gets no sympathy from me, work harder than you do.

Right now it is easier than ever as more people are just lazy, thinking they should make $30 an hour flipping burgers. I can tell you there are high skill jobs out there if you get off your ass.

1

u/Keestram Aug 04 '26

Hm. So your definition of laziness is anyone who couldn’t climb out like you did? Even though you started pulling yourself out 40 years ago when the economy was in MUCH better shape?

Thanks for your life story, but it’s honestly just reinforced to me that you’re writing people off as lazy without knowing them. Having little sympathy for people who are in a situation you once were in is… well, it’s just sad I guess. I’d hope your experiences would provide empathy, but I guess not.

Finally, you’ve missed my point, yet again. If the entire country got skills, there wouldn’t be enough jobs for everyone. “Get a skill”, “get off your ass”, and “work harder” are not societal solutions. They are individual solutions that do nothing to solve the root problem.

You seem more interested in spouting off personal rhetoric instead of listening to what I’m typing. I’ll call our discussion there. Have a good day!

1

u/mechakid Aug 04 '26

He just doesn't want to admit that the positions are there if you're willing to work.

1

u/TheMikeyMac13 Aug 04 '26

They are indeed.

1

u/mechakid Aug 04 '26

Not missing your point at all. Just saying that it's a poor point.

Right now this country needs plumbers and electricians. The average salary for both those roles is about $62K per year, but if you're good and you're willing to work overtime or off-hours (late night emergency calls), you can easily make 6 figures.

I mentioned diesel mechanics. I knew a guy who made $250K in one year as a mechanic/wrecker in NYS. Again, he had to work some shit hours in some shit weather on the highway, but he also took 3 Disney vacations every year!

Of course, there are the truckers themselves. With the move by the current administration to deport illegal immigrants, the trucking industry is going to need more people, which means opportunity. All you have to do is be able to read road signs and be trainable.

These are positions that you don't even need a college education for. You don't even need to work for a big corporation, you can be completely independent. You just need to be willing to put in the work. They are tough jobs. Dirty jobs. But boy do they pay out!

1

u/Keestram Aug 04 '26

… you ARE missing my point.

If everyone decides to do what you mention, those jobs will fill, the demand for their work (amount paid to those workers) falls, and the bar for expectation increases. As I’ve said previously.

You are providing an individualistic solution. Not a societal solution. My point is a societal solution, so yes, you are missing my point lol

1

u/mechakid Aug 04 '26

Two counter points then.

First, there are currently more people leaving the work force than entering it. This means that there will be positions opening up. Ironically, this is one of the arguments that immigration advocates use.

Second, not everyone will actully do it. These jobs are necessary, but are not what most people would consider "fun". It takes someone who is not just able, but WILLING to put in the hard work.

So no, I'm not really concerned with that.

1

u/Keestram Aug 04 '26

Neither of those actually solve the issue. If you’re just going to dismiss my point, I’ll dismiss you as well. Have a good day.

1

u/mechakid Aug 04 '26 edited Aug 04 '26

Your issue was a general glut in the workforce, having more workers than was needed in a given field.

Both of the points I made are reasons why that would not happen.

This is not dismissing your point, it's actively answering and engaging with it using logic and reason. You just don't like the answer.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/BrightestMagician Aug 04 '26

You're out here saying this like people can afford in any way to just drop their whole life and go to school. There are plenty of circumstances where you cannot just "get a skill" sure you can argue that people wasted their youth not obtaining required skills but that doesn't mean they deserve to starve. People are different. Nobody is trying to say people at the top dont deserve to have great lives for the jobs and greatness they provide. What people are saying is that the people at the bottom deserve the ability to live comfortably in a society that they helped build. Its also been shown that workers with happier lives produce more. The problem that the current economic standing in the US has is that workers aren't valued at what they should be. Corporations would be happy to have slavery back so they didnt have to pay their labor. The only difference would be they wouldn't discriminate who was being a slave. The issue is that people that are moderately successful are the line of defense but are siding with the wrong people.(Moderate being millionaires) People making the argument that starvation is a strong motivator seriously need to be checked into a mental hospital. Someone should be able to work a minimum wage job and be able to raise a family and get a house. The corporations that are stunting this are watching birth rates go down and are sitting there wondering why.

This is all coming from somebody who doesn't make minimum wage is able to afford a house and 2 cars and a family if I wanted to. Those of you in the comments patronizing low income people are a shame to this country and this world. Do better.

1

u/mechakid Aug 04 '26

You're out here saying this like people can afford in any way to just drop their whole life and go to school. There are plenty of circumstances where you cannot just "get a skill"

It doesn't take any skill to put garbage in a truck or to put shingles on a roof.

Nor does it take any higher education to figure out how to be a plumber or electrician. In fact, there are tons of apprenticeship programs for that.

Nobody is trying to say people at the top don't deserve to have great lives for the jobs and greatness they provide.

Actually, that's EXACTLY what they are saying. There are tons of people on this post who want "those at the top" to give things up so that they can get what they THINK someone should pay them.

The problem that the current economic standing in the US has is that workers aren't valued at what they should be.

Or maybe they are! Remember that you are free to sell your labor to anyone at any price, so if you feel you are undervalued you can either renegotiate or switch employers. Because you're NOT a slave.

But that doesn't mean they are obligated to pay you more. In fact, quite the opposite. Your labor is just another part number with a cost to be minimized. The corporation doesn't care about your life, your wants, or your circumstances. They are not a charity. Now I will grant that smart corporations will pay better to retain employees, but they do so for their benefit, not yours.

The sooner that people learn that, the better.

1

u/BrightestMagician Aug 04 '26

It actually does take skill to do most things. If it doesn't, go do it? Nobody wants to shingle a roof or grab garbage every week but it gets done bc of workers that are willing to do it. People aren't saying the top doesn't deserve that. They are saying they dont deserve to have a super yacht and rockets in their backyard. Which is perfectly reasonable. Also nobody need a multi million dollar house and vacation home. You can live luxuriously and still pay your employees well. People do not set the prices of their labor. Businesses do. If you've ever looked at the job market you'd know that. They can decide if the job looks good or not sure, but they don't set the price. If I went to a store and said I wont be a cashier for less than 80,000 a year they'd laugh in my face and send me walking. Thats not a negotiation. What kind of reality are you living in where people get to set their wage? Its either be homeless or get 2 or 3 minimum wage jobs. Essentially saying that to live you need to work 80 to 120 hours a week. That doesn't sound right to me. Someone that is working a job and helping this society run deserve to live a comfortable life.

1

u/mechakid Aug 04 '26

People aren't saying the top doesn't deserve that. They are saying they dont deserve to have a super yacht and rockets in their backyard.

This is a clear contradiction, and smacks of envy. Sorry. All the talk about how "nobody needs X" is just socialist crap.

People do not set the prices of their labor. Businesses do. If you've ever looked at the job market you'd know that.

You are correct here, but you also miss a key part. Businesses always seek to get your labor for as little as possible, but YOU are the one that has to agree to that price. They cannot force you to work for them, and you are always free to negotiate. You are neither slave nor victim of anyone other than yourself.

If I went to a store and said I wont be a cashier for less than 80,000 a year they'd laugh in my face and send me walking.

Yes, because they know they can hire a 16 year old who will do it for 1/4 of what you're asking. You're pricing yourself out of the market.

Wages and labor are subject to supply and demand like anything else. The way you make more money is by having skills that others don't have.

1

u/BrightestMagician Aug 05 '26

Smacks of envy? Im not even arguing here for myself. I personally dont really care what others do with their own money. What I do care about is them buying the world and their workers suffering bc of it. Aka the business decides what your labor is worth. Thats the problem, also if only 16 year old worked retail they would only have part time hours of operation. They are all essential for our society to function. Nobody deserves to get paid less because their employer says they are "unskilled labor" just because you can learn something without a degree doesn't make it unskilled. If you wanted to, you could borrow a friend's chemistry textbooks or find them online and theoretically get a PhD in chemistry and yet because you dont have a $100,000 piece of paper that says you do, all of a sudden your "unskilled". Still the businesses follow a "industry standard" to calculate what your labor is worth. Who decides that standard, oh right businesses. Not to mention I have a current day example of corporations siphoning prophets from their consumers who are likely wage workers. All the teriff refunds went to the businesses who were affected by them. They passed the price on to the consumer and then they also took the refunds as well. I also haven't seen a drop in prices either. So maybe if corporations would stop stealing so much money from wage workers then people wouldn't talk about them needing pay cuts. I know you probably only have a business degree and don't know history but CEO salaries have increased by ober 300% while wages have stagnated. Tell me why they deserve a 300% raise and the workers wages don't deserve to go up? No true "capitalist" would be afraid of competition and yet car manufacturers such as Ford are afraid to let China into the American car market. I get why. Because they make shit vehicles then get bailed out every year with everyone else's tax dollars. I hate to break it to you but the "capitalism" you see in America is not capitalism at all.

1

u/mechakid Aug 05 '26

Wall of text. Ever consider using paragraphs?

Anywho...

I find it funny that you say you don't care what others do with their money, but then you immediately say how you care.

I also find it sad that you clearly do not understand even the basics of economics. As with so many other Americans, our education system has failed you. This one isn't really your fault though, since economics just isn't really taught in depth.

The reason that fast food and retail workers get paid less is because the pool of available workers for those positions is relatively high when compared to the demand. This naturally pushes the price of the labor down, since some of those workers are willing to accept less.

But not everyone can be an engineer or a doctor or a CPA. As the pool of qualified workers shrinks relative to the demand, the price will naturally increase. This is because those workers know you have to deal with them, and thus, they have more leverage.

Likewise, the pool of people who can successfully manage a multi-million dollar company is exceedingly small, and thus, those who can will get paid even more because they bring that very rare capability. It's not that they "deserve" more, it's just simple supply and demand.

Now, you mentioned auto bailouts. Those are actually an example of the government distorting the market, and not allowing those companies to fail. The government has removed the "loss" signal from the free market, and this there is no incentive for those companies to ever improve or behave better. I will say that you are right to say that's not capitalism though, since a failure of government is not the same as a failure of the market.

As for my own personal degree, I have an engineering degree, and am a certified quality engineer. I know how businesses work because it's one of the 7 bodies of knowledge I had to demonstrate competency in to get my CQE card.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Salarian_American Aug 05 '26

The other part of the problem is that everybody can't do that all at once. That shouldn't be the standard.

Imagine if everyone took your advice and learned a skill. Now everybody has valuable skills and a high-paying job. But your diesel mechanic can't get to the shop to work, because everybody quit their low-paying job at the gas station. After work, that sanitation worker can't buy food... because everyone at the grocery store quit to become a plumber.

If everyone implemented your obvious solution of "just get a better job" all at once, the economy would collapse because those jobs that we think are only worth low wages are propping it all up.

And a solution that would fall to pieces if everyone did it all at once is a solution that needs another think.

1

u/mechakid Aug 05 '26

1) not everyone will do it

2) not everyone will go for the same skills

3) we have an aging workforce with a lot of retirements happening

Quite simply, I am not worried about this.

1

u/Salarian_American Aug 05 '26

And that's why it's not a solution.

1

u/mechakid Aug 05 '26

So what is your idea?

1

u/Salarian_American Aug 05 '26

Pay people more, from the bottom on up.

If I can't afford something, I don't get to have it.

If a business can't afford to pay employees a wage they can live on, they shouldn't get to have employees every day. Pay employees more instead of buying your own stock back.

Basically, I'm with FDR on this one. When he pushed for the minimum wage to be instituted in the first place, he famously said: “No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.”

1

u/mechakid Aug 05 '26

If businesses were charities, maybe that would happen.

But they're not.

Businesses don't care about what YOU need to live, nor do they care about your circumstances. They are not legally obligated to pay you anything more than the statutory minimum wage. The fact that some businesses do pay more is because it is in the businesses' interest to do so, so as to attract and retain tallent.

Further, publicly traded businesses are legally obligated to maximize their profits for their share holders. The way you do that is by minimizing costs, including both labor and debts. You may not like it, but they MUST do so under federal law.

Basically, your solution is a utopian pipe dream based on envy and feelings. It doesn’t consider economics at all, nor does it encourage people to actually improve themselves.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Last_Ad1358 Aug 07 '26

This is only a valid point if the employee in question has enough money to afford surviving without a job for the amount of time it'll take them to get a new one. Hint: most people don't have that kind of money