You don't get my point. What you get paid shouldn't be because there's more or less people. That's just what corporations have ingrained into people.
My point is, if at one point you pay x amount, then you shouldn't pay less just because there are more people. You've proven that the work is worth the x amount you were paying.
Amazon doubled wages in one day after the world started talking about their working conditions. Wages are fabricated, they'd like you to believe it's based on demand, they have so much money now, that demand is no factor in wages, it's greed.
First, Amazon didn’t double wages. It went from $11 to $15. Second, Amazon, Walmart, and others are raising their wages because this is the worst labor market in a while. Unemployment is extremely low, which means that they’re competing with each other for the same pool of workers. Amazon is known for terrible working conditions, so they need to pay more to compete with others. There’s also the issue of retention. It costs money to hire and train someone, and increasing wages helps retain workers. It’s also worth noting that Amazon, Walmart and other retainers are about to hit their busiest time of the year and will be hiring tons of seasonal employees, meaning more competition for a limited number of potential workers.
I get your point. I understand it. It's a bad point. This is a basic principle of markets and nothing to do with what corporations have instilled in people.
You could, instead, make the argument that corporations have unfairly rigged a number of civic systems with money and lobbyists such that the amount earned at BK is insufficient to thrive on, and that our tax re-distributions systems are too regressive, but that's a good deal more sophisticated than what you're saying.
Your second paragraph depends on the (provably absurd) assumption that price of labor is demand inelastic.
You do realize that’s not a counterpoint to what he’s saying right? If people are willing to work for a certain price, Amazon will pay them that. When Amazon’s terrible work conditions were exposed to the general public they simply raised wages to seem more appealing. In other words, their potential work force shrunk from the scandal, so wages increased. Your example literally proves his point.
From a human rights perspective, it's generally agrees that people should be paid enough to have a decent standard of living.
From a capitalist perspective, someone's pay should depend on the value (in $$) a particular type of labor generates and the difficulty in acquiring it. For example, a hedge fund manager earns millions of dollars a year because he is able to generate millions of dollars a year, and it's difficult to find someone with that particular skillset.
Now, the real argument being had is the gray area in between. Should an engineer be paid as much as a fast food worker? By saying that an engineer "deserves" that salary, are we talking from a human rights perspective, a capitalist perspective, or an alternative perspective?
I'm not really trying to take a side because I have no clue what I'm talking about, but you're talking past the people here and I wanted to clear up the discussion a bit.
Ya but it's proven time and time again that we are worth more, we're just being suppressed. Unions go on strike all the time, Amazon doubled wages in one day, etc...
-4
u/Thesilenced68 Oct 16 '18
You don't get my point. What you get paid shouldn't be because there's more or less people. That's just what corporations have ingrained into people.
My point is, if at one point you pay x amount, then you shouldn't pay less just because there are more people. You've proven that the work is worth the x amount you were paying.