[HN Gopher] Minimum Wage Clock
___________________________________________________________________
Minimum Wage Clock
Author : shakna
Score : 148 points
Date : 2024-01-04 20:40 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (moonbase.lgbt)
(TXT) w3m dump (moonbase.lgbt)
| justrealist wrote:
| < 1% of the US is paid the federal minimum wage. Basically 0 once
| you discount income tax evasion and tipped employees. I don't
| think McDonalds starts under $12 anywhere, in practice $15 or
| more basically everywhere.
|
| I mean have a conversation about the wage gap sure but know that
| these numbers are not meaningful as it regards the US.
| Shekelphile wrote:
| $12-15 today is effectively lower than the federal minimum was
| 4 years ago. It's a completely disingenuous argument to make
| that it's acceptable to pay people that little.
| CrazyStat wrote:
| Inflation over the last 4 years has been about 20%, not
| 50-100% as your comment would imply.
|
| Source: https://data.bls.gov/cgi-
| bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1&year1=201911...
| Shekelphile wrote:
| Maybe for people who already owned assets and had a stable
| living situation before 2020. If you're renting and had to
| buy anything expensive like a car in the last few years
| then your costs have more than doubled.
| gruez wrote:
| >If you're renting and had to buy anything expensive like
| a car in the last few years then your costs have more
| than doubled.
|
| Source?
| itishappy wrote:
| My rental has gone up about 18%.
|
| Cars have gone up about 25%.
|
| https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/buying-a-car/people-
| spe...
| darklycan51 wrote:
| I guarantee you you put a $15/hr person in that site and you
| barely notice a difference compared to a billionaire.
| CharlesW wrote:
| However, ~30% of all hourly, non-self-employed workers 18 and
| older in the U.S. are "near-minimum-wage" workers, who make
| more than the minimum wage in their state but less than $10.10
| an hour. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-
| reads/2017/01/04/5-facts-a...
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| I'm curious about your data behind your claims. Does it account
| for waitstaff paid below minimum wage? (but then bumped up by
| tips)
| anigbrowl wrote:
| True, and yet there's strenuous political opposition ot any
| proposal to increase it. Why is that?
| fxd123 wrote:
| Because you can just increase minimum wage at the state level
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > < 1% of the US is paid the federal minimum wage. Basically 0
| once you discount income tax evasion and tipped employees.
|
| When I was a teenager, I worked as a fast food cook and got
| paid $6.51/hr. The minimum wage where I was at the time: $6.50.
| This was probably so they could claim that they "paid above
| minimum wage" in their marketing to potential employees. Based
| on this experience hearing that "no one is paid the federal
| minimum wage" is not very convincing to me.
| ziddoap wrote:
| > _< 1% of the US is paid the federal minimum wage_
|
| Where did you get this data?
|
| And, out of curiosity, what percentage of people are within,
| say, $0.50/hr of minimum wage?
| seiferteric wrote:
| True, but a big problem with these jobs is not giving employees
| enough hours consistently. I wonder how many people are getting
| effectively minimum wage or less because they don't even get
| full-time hours consistently.
| cedws wrote:
| I think it's appalling that the minimum wage is capped based on
| your age in the UK. It implies that the value provided to the
| employer is lower if you're younger.
|
| The minimum wage should be the same for everyone. There's plenty
| of 18 year olds out there doing more than their 30 year old
| counterparts and getting paid less for it.
| darklycan51 wrote:
| Why is it appalling? if you want to promote people having kids
| then this is one of the ways to do it. a kid can live sharing
| rent or with his parents, an adult cannot.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| > a kid can live sharing rent or with his parents, an adult
| cannot.
|
| Many adults are living in this situation right now.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| And if someone isn't minimum wage useful by 14, then our school
| system is an abject failure and the bureaucracy should be
| fired.
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| It's not so much about the readiness for work as much as the
| reliability and productivity of a 16 years old living at home
| VS the one of an adult that has to care for their family.
|
| I think the difference is too big to be honest, but I do
| understand where it comes from.
|
| Of course this punishes ALL 16 years old when some would
| perform better than an older employee, but there's no perfect
| system.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > The cap implies that the amount of value provided to the
| employer is lower if you're younger.
|
| It's not a cap, it's a minimum.
|
| This is so people can employ kids who have very little economic
| value and train them to have lots of it.
| cedws wrote:
| >It's not a cap, it's a minimum.
|
| misphrased, fixed.
|
| >This is so people can employ kids who have very little
| economic value and train them to have lots of it.
|
| But 18 year olds are not kids anymore and are capable of
| providing just as much economic value as a 25 year old.
| Especially if the employer is a coffee shop or restaurant.
|
| Minimum wage should be the same for all ages. It should be at
| the discretion of the employers to pay more to experienced
| employees.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > But 18 year olds are not kids anymore and are capable of
| providing just as much economic value as a 25 year old.
| Especially if the employer is a coffee shop or restaurant.
|
| I'm not sure that's true - experience counts in those
| industries. I speak as a former 18-year-old coffee shop
| person.
|
| I think this is a result of minimum wage not being enough
| for people who can only get a minimum wage job, but are
| getting on in years a little. I.e. it's been lobbied into
| effect by those representing slightly older people to
| increase their wages, rather than decrease the wages of 18
| year olds.
| matrss wrote:
| > I'm not sure that's true - experience counts in those
| industries. I speak as a former 18-year-old coffee shop
| person.
|
| You are assuming that age equals experience, but a 19
| year old might be working at the coffee shop for a year
| already when a 25 year old is just starting. Shouldn't
| the 19 year old have a higher pay then?
| dgfitz wrote:
| Only if the shop owner wants to keep the 19 year
| employed.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I would argue a 25 year old is still a kid too. I know
| every 20 something would vehemently disagree which is kind
| of proof in and of itself. I don't mean it in a
| disrespectful manner.
| wizardwes wrote:
| "All X are Y, and their denial proves it" seems a very
| poor argument to me. By its very nature you can't really
| disprove it.
| dylan604 wrote:
| A kid arguing they are not a kid is a very kid like thing
| to do is my point. Kids always want to convince people
| they are not a kid. I'm not 3, I'm 3 1/2. I'm not a kid,
| I'm 22. Jokingly, when you start trying to convince
| people you are younger is when you're probably old enough
| to be considered an adult.
| cedws wrote:
| Your reply made me smile because it's dead on. I'm 22.
| Though, I don't agree. There's things to learn at all
| ages.
| zogrodea wrote:
| I just don't think it's a good idea to infantilise people
| in their 20s further. It's not a super-fringe opinion
| that people generally tend to reach a certain level of
| maturity later than they did in the past.
|
| Some of that is pleasant as it means people can enjoy
| child-like comfort for longer, but too much of it seems
| like it would have adverse effects.
| danaris wrote:
| > But 18 year olds are not kids anymore and are capable of
| providing just as much economic value as a 25 year old.
|
| TBH, this isn't even the most relevant argument here.
|
| We don't have minimum wage laws because we think that every
| person produces at least (say) $15/hr of economic value.
|
| We have minimum wage laws because we believe that no human
| being should have to work more than 40 hours a week to earn
| enough to _live_.
|
| And there are 16-year-olds who are working to provide for
| their families (parents are dead, or disabled, etc, etc).
| umpalumpaaa wrote:
| Isnt this still age discrimination?
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Not if it's a law, I wouldn't say. By law 16 year olds
| can't drive on public roads, but that's not counted as age
| discrimination.
| anticorporate wrote:
| By that logic, Jim Crow laws weren't discriminatory
| because they were laws. I wouldn't suggest relying on
| legal frameworks as a replacement for ethical ones.
| Kye wrote:
| "It's not discrimination, it says so right here in the
| legal code" would fit right in to a Monty Python sketch.
| Filligree wrote:
| Isn't that obviously age discrimination? It's just that
| sometimes there's a good reason for it.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Why stop there? Why not harp on the 21+ laws, or the 18
| to vote or the or the or the? Then you can take the same
| logic and apply it to why do we have laws that restrict
| anything? Very soon, it's anarchy
| renewiltord wrote:
| Yes, but age discrimination is something we consider
| acceptable in most countries. There are specific kinds of
| age discrimination we consider unacceptable but by and
| large it's legal.
|
| In the US, for instance, Medicare only serves sufficiently
| old people.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| This site doesn't distinguish pay and not-pay, I think. Sundar
| Pichai is paid about $8m/year, not $100k/hour. The rest is stock.
| And even that vests over 3 years[0], not one year.
|
| [0]
| https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000130817923...
| selectout wrote:
| This. I am okay showing total comp, but the numbers also
| seem...weird? Like Zuck makes $1/year salary. $27m/year which
| is mostly security expenses if I remember correctly, but has by
| far the largest net worth (of those listed) which is what
| people care about. And his stock appreciation is vastly higher
| than that shown.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| I think the problem with net worth is it's hard to reason
| about. Some people think billionaires could pay for
| everything if only we stole their money, when it turns out
| they don't have money, or not much in the grand scheme of
| public spending. It's just slightly too divorced from reality
| to make good instinctive decisions.
|
| However it does make for good shock jock value.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| That's true, but CEOs (in general) are also in a unique
| position to create the _appearance_ of value for stockholders
| through financial engineering, acquisitions, buybacks and so
| forth. They 're able to leverage the resources of the company
| in unusual ways that don't necessarily have anything to do with
| operations or direct revenue, including firing other workers to
| improve the balance sheet.
|
| And once they're retired or been forced out or moved on to
| another firm, they're free to divest their earned stock without
| much scrutiny; I've never heard of a CEO being critiqued for
| selling off stock in a former employer. So in that sense, money
| is money.
| anonuser123456 wrote:
| So what? The principal agent people has been understood by
| investors since the time of Adam Smith. Everyone is already
| aware of this.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| If we find this appalling, let's stop consuming the products of
| those who we feel are "overpaid" and visit the website,
| businessplace, or other endeavors of those we feel are
| "underpaid". Tim Cook gets paid a lot (and so do many AAPL
| employees), but I can't help but admit that my last 3 laptops I
| bought with my own cash were MBP, and not a system76 or
| framework. And I'm more likely to visit costco than a farmer's
| market / local vendor.
| renjimen wrote:
| This is hard due to all the monopolies that exist in the modern
| world, and it's only possible for B2C businesses. The entire
| value chain is dominated by B2B where consumers have little
| say. I love System76 but their components are still from mega
| corps with stupid CEO salaries.
|
| The only effective ways to deal with this are progressive
| taxation and labor regulations. Bring back the 90+% top tax
| bracket that Thatcher and Reagan disposed of. Tie minimum wage
| to regional cost of living indices.
|
| Of course, this article only discusses wages. The truly wealthy
| don't make much from income. It's incredible that capital gains
| tax is less than income tax.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| I'm still unsettled on the balance between unequal pay, and
| treating the government as the only redistribution solution
| (ie taxation).
|
| I do prefer market solutions that Charity/Philanthropy offer
| vs governmental spending. And sometimes I think about how
| many of the richest have a 100% tax bracket as they've
| pledged their fortunes to charity after death.
|
| Probably seems contradictory to my parent comment, but as I
| said I'm just not sure of the best path forward tbh.
| renjimen wrote:
| The nice thing about taxation though is that it doesn't
| rely on the whims of billionaires. Charity is unreliable
| and doesn't work for large, long term endeavors that modern
| society is built on.
|
| I recommend reading the History of Equality by Thomas
| Piketty to better understand the efficacy of progressive
| income tax and wealth tax.
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| There are issues with any approach but it seems like the
| purpose of a democratic government should be to help the
| common person out in situations like this, because it's the
| only real mechanism we have to fight back against the
| concentrated power that wealth brings.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| US taxes already allow you to deduct ~60% of your income
| with charitable deductions. Taxes only apply to what's left
| over afterwards.
| jacobolus wrote:
| > _market solutions that Charity /Philanthropy offer_
|
| In practice, laws ostensibly intended to support
| philanthropy are used as tax dodges, money laundering
| schemes, workarounds of campaign finance laws, etc., with
| all manner of perverse incentives and conflicts of interest
| involved. The big money is generally less in "market
| solutions" and more in "hacking the tax code for the
| benefit of the wealthy".
|
| In my opinion financial gifts to organizations should not
| offer tax write-offs for donors (especially of
| estate/inheritance taxes), or at any rate the maximum
| write-off should be capped based on plausible middle-class
| contributions; and universities, churches, and charities
| should generally pay the taxes businesses pay. If people
| want to spend their money on charitable activities, that's
| great, but the government should not be in the business of
| differentially subsidizing them based on the whims of the
| wealthy. If we want to have direct government subsidies of
| charities or educational institutions, it should be based
| on some transparent and democratically accountable grant
| system.
|
| If we want to help ordinary people, the most effective
| method is universal direct cash transfers from the
| government (without means testing, weird income cliffs, or
| bureaucratic hoops), better labor protections, and
| restructuring the tax code to be more progressive (e.g.
| toward land-value tax and away from sales tax, treating
| capital gains as income, adding higher-rate income tax
| brackets at the top end, and raising caps on payroll
| taxes).
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > And sometimes I think about how many of the richest have
| a 100% tax bracket as they've pledged their fortunes to
| charity after death.
|
| That's not the same as a 100% tax bracket, because those
| resources are free to be deployed while the person is still
| alive. Also, with charity, the devil is often in the
| details. The Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, for example,
| is focused not only on helping stop disease in
| disadvantaged countries but also encouraging stronger IP
| protection in medicine[1] and pushing for privatization of
| education[2].
|
| Charitable organizations can be conduits for transforming
| economic power into political power. This is not the same
| as a tax.
|
| [1] https://newrepublic.com/article/162000/bill-gates-
| impeded-gl...
|
| [2]
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/06/19/bill-
| mel...
| scrozier wrote:
| Pledging your fortune to charity is not taxation, and
| calling this a tax bracket is misleading.
| DonnyV wrote:
| Market solutions don't work against problems that affect
| everyone and you can't make money from. More efficiency
| isn't going solve poor peoples problems or monopoly
| capture. This is the current problem we have with
| healthcare. Healthcare should never have been turned into a
| business, it affects everyone.
| ta1243 wrote:
| Stop taxing productive work.
|
| Tim Cook's 100k/hour doesn't get taxed at the _current_ top
| rate, let alone a new 90% rate.
| meowtimemania wrote:
| Ironically, Costco treats its employees much better than most
| any locally owned shop.
| digging wrote:
| That's probably true.
|
| The benefits of local business are 1) that dollars spent
| there generate more wealth for the local economy, as they're
| not extracted to offshore bank accounts; and 2) that there
| _can be_ more accountability to and involvement with the
| community served.
|
| However, just because someone hasn't expanded their business
| to the state/national/international levels doesn't make them
| a good person, a good manager, a good CEO, or a good
| community member. The term "petty tyrant" is often used to
| refer to small business owners who abuse their employees
| and/or community.
| gruez wrote:
| >that dollars spent there generate more wealth for the
| local economy, as they're not extracted to offshore bank
| accounts
|
| This is only one side of the equation. Globalization also
| means the local economy is also "extracting" wealth from
| other economies.
|
| >2) that there can be more accountability to and
| involvement with the community served.
|
| Yeah, like car dealerships using their "accountability to
| and involvement" to forcibly insert themselves in the value
| chain?
| digging wrote:
| > This is only one side of the equation. Globalization
| also means the local economy is also "extracting" wealth
| from other economies.
|
| ... more than large corporations do? Nonsense
|
| > Yeah, like car dealerships using their "accountability
| to and involvement" to forcibly insert themselves in the
| value chain?
|
| I would suggest you reread the sentence you quoted and
| then go ahead and finish reading the rest of my comment,
| because this sounds like an argumentative retort but I
| don't think you understood what you're replying to.
| gruez wrote:
| >... more than large corporations do? Nonsense
|
| Corporations aren't some entities from another dimension.
| Their earnings must ultimately go to someone. For the
| global economy as a whole, all the "extraction" that's
| happening ultimately net out to zero.
|
| >I would suggest you reread the sentence you quoted and
| then go ahead and finish reading the rest of my comment,
| because this sounds like an argumentative retort but I
| don't think you understood what you're replying to.
|
| I suggest you do the same. I was simply pointing out the
| dark side of the dynamic you described. Yes, car
| dealerships are pillars of many communities. They sponsor
| local clubs/sporting teams and local politicians.
| However, all that "involvement" means they wield enormous
| political power, to the extent that they're able to lobby
| state representatives to forcibly add themselves to the
| automotive value chain. Whether that's better for the
| consumer, and the local community as a whole is
| questionable. After all, they're getting the money from
| the local community, and if their services aren't needed
| (why do you have to go through a dealership rather than
| ordering through a web app?) then they're ultimately
| leeches and a net negative for the community.
| latentcall wrote:
| Right, also keep in mind Costco can afford to treat their
| employees well. A small mom and pop with the owner(s) and
| maybe one or two clerks may not be able to in the same way.
| legohead wrote:
| That doesn't solve anything. So what if those particular people
| don't make as much? Something that benefits everyone equally,
| while also allowing capitalistic endeavors to continue, is more
| reasonable. Like a living wage.
| 38 wrote:
| Just say MacBook pro.
| MattRix wrote:
| This kind of approach never works except for in the most
| egregious of situations. Just imagine what the state of car
| safety would be like if it was purely left up to the market.
| Regulations work.
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| This is a great example especially considering how injuries
| inside cars have continued to drop (which is regulated) but
| injuries outside of cars have increased (we don't regulate
| visibility or hood/bumper height for example)
| digging wrote:
| Right. Regulation is what works, but it's not a magic wand.
| We can't keep allowing industries to write their own
| regulations without meaningful public input.
| jdietrich wrote:
| Unlike the NHTSA tests, the Euro NCAP tests include tests
| of pedestrian, cyclist and motorcyclist protection - both
| passive protection to mitigate injury in the event of a
| collision, and active protection to prevent a collision in
| the first place. Performance in these tests count towards
| the overall 5 star rating. My understanding is that NHTSA
| is working on preliminary research into the issue, but
| they're a clear 15-20 years behind Euro NCAP.
|
| https://www.euroncap.com/en/car-safety/the-ratings-
| explained...
| jacobolus wrote:
| A lack of visibility regulation is the biggest problem in
| current vehicle design in my opinion. A 5' (152 cm) tall
| driver should be able to clearly see a small child standing
| a few feet away in front of or to either side of any
| vehicle allowed on public streets. Any vehicle modification
| compromising that should be strictly prohibited.
|
| Steep financial liability for pedestrian/cyclist accidents
| for not only the driver but also the vehicle manufacturer
| or anyone involved in modifying a vehicle would also help.
| gruez wrote:
| >Just imagine what the state of car safety would be like if
| it was purely left up to the market. Regulations work.
|
| I think even diehard libertarians would admit that
| "regulations work" in the sense that using the government's
| monopoly on violence to force companies to do something will
| cause them to do said thing. The debate is whether the
| upsides outweigh the downsides (eg. due to regulatory
| capture).
|
| For a point of comparison, software security is largely
| unregulated. There's no law that says Google needs to deliver
| security patches for 5 years, or they need to implement
| security measures like verified boot, yet they do so anyways,
| presumably to compete with Apple which is doing something
| similar.
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| _> think even diehard libertarians would admit that
| "regulations work" in the sense that using the government's
| monopoly on violence to force companies to do something
| will cause them to do said thing. The debate is whether
| enacting them is better than the alternative (eg. due to
| regulatory capture)._
|
| That isn't really the debate, because we had that debate
| and decided it was (see seatbelts for an example). Though I
| guess literally every issue could _technically_ be
| relitigated and debated constantly ad infinitum, so you 're
| not technically wrong. But we didn't listen to people who
| said _" if you want seatbelts required, just stop buying
| cars that don't have them"_.
|
| What we see now, for the most part, are individuals who
| disagree with our consensus, but that's to be expected no
| matter what we had ultimately decided. So in this case, "it
| worked" is shorthand for "it successfully got us closer to
| achieving the goals we decided on"
| nickff wrote:
| Car safety is an interesting one, because most of the 'safety
| innovations' we employ today were invented as 'factory
| options', not as a result of regulations (which were later
| used to make the features mandatory). Most economists
| evaluate safety features as 'luxury goods', usually employed
| in high-cost vehicles before migrating downmarket.
|
| The question how valuable consumers perceive safety features
| to be, and what their rate of adoption would be;
| additionally, which ones would they choose? Two interesting
| examples are seat-belts and air-bags; the former is in the
| thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per life saved, and
| the latter is generally estimated to be in the millions of
| dollars per life saved. Was mandating the air-bag the optimal
| way to use that money, or did the government commit
| statistical murder (a term often used in the field).
| doesnt_know wrote:
| Isn't putting this onto the consumer a little bit of a cop out?
|
| This enormous global system of powerful corporations and nation
| states crafted this system because it was in their best
| interest. Feels sort of tone deaf to say "well, you got what
| you deserved, you created this sytem by buying this specific
| computer and cheaper food!"
|
| Night/farmer's markets are quite popular here in NZ but we
| haven't toppled global inquality by visiting them yet and I
| doubt continuing to do so is going to make a difference.
| Y-bar wrote:
| Why not? As a consumer I can choose dinner from either beef
| from burned amazon rainforest, or a ratatouille made from
| seasonal local ingredients, or anything in between. I can
| choose to buy a 2-tonne gas SUV or something smaller.
|
| I can choose to participate in "fast fashion", or choose to
| buy some of my clothing second-hand.
|
| I can choose a vacation by flying to Greece, or hiking the
| local area, or anywhere in between.
|
| I can often choose to wait another year to upgrade my
| phone/computer/device.
|
| Corporations don't just do stuff, they respond to our
| actions.
|
| Voting in booths generally works better to affect change in
| systems like these with externalities, but voting with action
| and wallets also works.
|
| I do consider that I have a responsibility to act ethically
| versus other people, and that includes making choices as a
| consumer.
| henriquez wrote:
| You can "choose" assuming you have disposable income. For
| people who need cheap clothes, food, etc. there is still a
| systemic issue of wealth disparity and unjust enrichment.
| It's more than any one company, CEO, or consumer purchase
| and it should be obvious.
| wintogreen74 wrote:
| Doesn't this imply that there's an entire group of people
| who are now better off, if they have to choose between
| (a) the relatively new availability of cheap clothes or
| food and (b) going without? Previously they went without?
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| In many cases the choice goes the other way. Are you
| saving money by replacing your computer a year sooner or
| participating in fast fashion instead of buying second
| hand clothes? Even if you're cash constrained and fast
| fashion is not an option, you still have the choice
| between Walmart and Goodwill.
|
| And generally the people propping up these organizations
| _are_ the people with disposable income because they 're
| the ones who can pay the margins that keep the companies
| rich. If you can afford a new Macbook, you can afford
| something from Framework. The person without a choice is
| buying something used from eBay or doesn't have a laptop
| at all.
| petsfed wrote:
| Similarly, there is never any scenario where a union is
| more effective than individuals each advocating for their
| own needs, because the organizations people negotiate with
| always negotiate in good faith, and both sides provide all
| available information to the other. /s
|
| Corporations respond to our actions, certainly. But in the
| same way (and for the same reason), we respond to corporate
| actions. You can bet that every single one of those CEOs in
| the article is doing everything they legally can to prevent
| people from "choosing" to go elsewhere. Some are going
| beyond that.
| kulahan wrote:
| Because the Tragedy of the Commons exists. Everyone doing
| what makes sense from their perspective doesn't mean that
| it's the right thing to do.
| soperj wrote:
| > Voting in booths generally works better to affect change
| in systems like these with externalities, but voting with
| action and wallets also works.
|
| I find that voting in booths doesn't tend to actually do
| anything, and voting with wallets actually accomplishes
| things.
| twosdai wrote:
| I hear you, and I agree we definitely bear some
| responsibility for our actions, so it seems fair to
| question it.
|
| However I really do wonder how much choice we have.
| Ultimately what I am going to say next comes down to
| believing the market is actually inefficient and prone to
| mistakes / manipulation.
|
| While we can buy a gas guzzling car or a smaller greener
| vehicle, there is a lot of time energy and effort spent to
| manipulate the perception of the smaller vehicle so that
| its seen as less attractive to purchase, as well as less
| attractive to make.
|
| More deeply, I'm not totally convinced that changing an
| individual to act ethically actually changes the group
| dynamic or consumption habits. Because by stating we have a
| responsibility to make ethical choices as a consumer we
| assume people act rationally all of the time when making
| purchasing decisions, which really isn't the case otherwise
| marketing wouldn't be effective. Finally, companies don't
| really respond to individuals, they respond to groups of
| people that fit their ideal customer profile. These groups
| likely have a different set of ethics than us and likely
| will not change to fit a different world view, at least in
| aggregate. Individually, sure, but not the whole group.
|
| Maybe more succinctly, I believe there is a real
| distinction that occurs by looking at group dynamics which
| cannot be inferred or changed at the individual level and
| because of that choosing to act ethically as an individual
| wont ever get the attention of billionaires or massive
| corporations.
|
| Not trying to be argumentative, I live in the same way you
| describe, but ultimately I don't think its going to change
| how apple operates. No matter how many people I tell.
| joshthecynic wrote:
| Of course it's a copout. This entire discussion is
| intellectually dishonest and deeply unserious.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > Isn't putting this onto the consumer a little bit of a cop
| out?
|
| It is the other way around, consumers wanting to keep
| consuming and feeling good about it while blaming someone
| else.
| salawat wrote:
| Bullshit, and you know it. I want a computer with
| completely open schematics, completely open firmware and
| uCode, GPUs with no ties to the entertainment industry, and
| processors that don't have baked in "ring -3"s.
|
| I want cars I can wrench on, and software I can trust. I
| want things that are mine first, not the manufacturers.
|
| It. Will. Not. Happen. Short of doing it ourselves, because
| businesses _can 't_ spawn around those values.
|
| So to hell with you pinning this on "well it's the
| consumers fault". To hell with that. The conspicuously
| absent feature is entirely a byproduct of industry. Not
| consumers. No one can consume what "industry" decides is
| bad for business.
| wintogreen74 wrote:
| And I think most consumers don't want these things. When
| given the choice they've consistently taken cost and
| convenience over openness, privacy or durability.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| The original post states they choose to purchase Apple
| products instead of System76, and they choose to purchase
| from Costco instead of farmers markets.
|
| You might want certain things, but that does not mean you
| can afford to pay the price that would be sufficient to
| serve the market (since there would be so few like you).
| Consumers, as a group, will most likely choose price and
| getting the job done quickly.
|
| Also, some things in life might just be so technically
| advanced that you will not find all the optionality you
| want.
| scottyah wrote:
| You don't have an Apple or Microsoft in NZ so it's working?
| ensignavenger wrote:
| I think your local farmers market vendors and other local
| vendors are far more likely to be paying their employees
| minimum wage than the companies mentioned.
| ta1243 wrote:
| https://knowyourmeme.com/editorials/guides/what-is-the-we-sh...
| bena wrote:
| I low key hate that comic. It makes a false equivalency.
|
| Recognizing a car could be safer isn't contradicted by owning
| one. If anything, ownership should give you more insight into
| the material problems of the item in question.
|
| Likewise, society is just everything. So suggesting
| improvements isn't contradictory.
|
| However, there is some hypocrisy in lambasting the maker of
| the very luxury goods you purchase for exploiting people. You
| are kind of justifying the companies' exploitation by
| purchasing from them. _And_ you can advocate for change from
| these makers without supporting them with your money.
|
| And some people do come with the attitude of "I don't want to
| change a single thing about my behaviors or sacrifice a
| single thing, but I expect the world to get better somehow."
| plasmatix wrote:
| I think you're misunderstanding the comic. I've always
| taken it to be exactly what you're saying, thus the "I am
| very intelligent". Because he's not.
| mega_dingus wrote:
| The linked article explains exactly this
| mega_dingus wrote:
| You keep referring to that comic. I do not think it means
| what you think it means.
| dwighttk wrote:
| "please move inefficiencies to things that are much more opaque
| and probably way more inefficient. Thanks"
| wharvle wrote:
| "Please increase your costs and inconvenience for this
| product category double-digit percentages, in order to send a
| message so tiny nobody will notice"
|
| Consumer action is notoriously ineffective. It's a well-
| studied thing in poli-sci and economics. You _need_
| government to overcome coordination problems there, even with
| overwhelming support for a cause. Because the price if you
| "cooperate" is way too high unless a huge proportion of
| others choose "cooperate", and you can't tell what they're
| picking until after the fact.
|
| [edit] it's fine if your goal is to have good feels, on the
| ethics front. It's a total waste of time and effort and
| expense if you want to have an effect on anything other than
| your own feelings.
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| Taking your apple example, apple products are not tim cook
| products, and it seems confused to suggest that people should
| punish every apple employee because of the actions of a single
| one.
|
| Shouldn't corrective action be directed at individual offending
| persons, not applied as collective punishment?
| lumost wrote:
| It's a question of extremes. With the exception of Zuckerburg,
| these are professional managers. If they stopped doing
| _anything_ day to day, their companies would remain successful
| and they 'd keep getting paid. If they delegated their entire
| workload to their staff - the same would be true. In both of
| the above situations, the company _may_ see it 's performance
| and value increase.
|
| While the above scenarios reflect the CEO's contribution to an
| organization's ability to capture value - there is a useful
| debate on whether these organizations should be able to capture
| that value. If the organization has a monopoly, then they can
| arbitrarily increase the amount of value they extract at the
| cost of other, more productive, sectors of the economy. Over-
| rewarding organizations and their leaders for capturing value
| incentivizes such anti-competitive behavior.
| iamthirsty wrote:
| > If they stopped doing anything day to day, their companies
| would remain successful and they'd keep getting paid.
|
| Have you been close to these positions in a _huge_ company?
|
| I really don't think that's the case at all.
|
| Ex: Look what happen to DIS after Iger left.
| madsbuch wrote:
| This is a straw man by people who are afraid of fair regulation
| and market dynamics.
|
| Myself I am from Denmark. Here we don't have a minimum wage,
| but we do have a strong union culture. This ensures power
| dynamics on the labor market ensuring that everybody gets a
| fair wage.
| gumby wrote:
| Easier said than done, as there is a lot of transactional
| asymmetry.
|
| At first blush that may sound bizarre, as there are a lot more
| consumers than providers. But from an individual company's PoV
| that may be reversed: internal decisions are easier to make
| than customer-responsive ones, especially as the number of
| customers goes up. This is why we have things like food safety
| regulations.
| physhster wrote:
| Compared to the others, Pichai's salary is absolutely not
| justifed.
| npoc wrote:
| The minimum wage should be scrapped. It either
|
| a) prevents people who are happy to work for less obtain a job
| which is uneconomical at the minimum wage, or
|
| b) it creates an effect similar to communism, where everyone
| doing a job at or below a certain value gets paid the same, no
| matter what the value of their work is. This leads to the higher
| quality workers reducing their output, as they are only getting
| the paid the same as someone producing work of, for example, half
| the value of their own.
| pylua wrote:
| c) the minimum amount required to live peacefully and with
| dignity.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| This is generally why I'm in favor of a UBI. It would solve
| so many employment problems if an employee in a bad situation
| could up and leave without a near-guarantee that they lose
| access to their home.
| kevincox wrote:
| I agree with this. Adding arbitrary limits and thresholds
| just causes strange effects elsewhere. If you remove the
| absolute need to accept whatever job is available then you
| have the ability to properly negotiate what salary is worth
| it to you.
| kimbernator wrote:
| While it's repeated ad nauseam, this was the intended purpose
| of the minimum wage, as quoted by FDR who signed the minimum
| wage into law:
|
| "It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which
| depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its
| workers has any right to continue in this country. By
| "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole
| of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar
| class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I
| mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of
| decent living."
| npoc wrote:
| It seems to be another case of naive, clumsy legislation
| causing more problems than it solves.
| kimbernator wrote:
| I don't mean to make assumptions about your life or your
| conditions, but in scenario A you describe a reality
| where there are a meaningful number of people who would
| be content to sell their labor for less than $7.25 per
| hour. I do not find this believable, given how little
| that amount is in today's dollars. At the point that
| you're okay with working for, say, $5/hour, why work at
| all? What lifestyle permits that as an income? What
| percentage of people do you believe would be okay with
| this?
|
| Additionally, you are describing an effect where removal
| of the minimum wage would result in more people working,
| but what of the wages of people who currently work for
| minimum wage? Clearly the jobs are economical at that
| rate, but I have a hard time believing that employers
| paying $7.25/hour would continue doing so if they weren't
| legally required to. I would be willing to wager my life
| savings that the loss in income associated with that
| would dwarf the amount of money being made by the
| hypothetical class of people you're describing.
| npoc wrote:
| In the case of most US states, I think it's fair to say
| that the minimum wage is moot. As you say, hardly anyone
| would consider working for less than that anyway. But why
| take away their freedom to do so?
| rhcom2 wrote:
| Well I think for one there is a power imbalance between
| employees and employers that seems primed for abuse
| without some regulatory minimum.
|
| Also is the goal to maximize the number in the workflow,
| or get people out of poverty? Having them work for less
| may increase employment figures but they'll still be in
| poverty. The minimum wage has shown to decrease
| employment but also lift the people employed out of
| poverty [1].
|
| 1.
| https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-02/56975-Minimum-
| Wage....
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > Well I think for one there is a power imbalance between
| employees and employers that seems primed for abuse
| without some regulatory minimum.
|
| If some employer is currently paying e.g. $10/hour when
| the minimum wage is $7.25/hour, why would that change if
| the minimum wage were $5/hour or $0?
|
| If anything they might have to pay more, because the
| employee might prefer a job paying $5/hour to one that
| pays $10/hour but incurs $6/hour worth of commuting
| expense and then the original employer would have to pay
| $11/hour to retain them.
|
| > Also is the goal to maximize the number in the
| workflow, or get people out of poverty?
|
| These are not unrelated goals. Generally people who can't
| find work end up in poverty.
|
| > The minimum wage has shown to decrease employment but
| also lift the people employed out of poverty
|
| You don't need a study for this, it's exactly what you
| would expect to happen. If you raise the minimum wage to
| $10, some jobs that pay $9 are still sustainable at $10,
| so those pay $10, some aren't, so those people lose their
| jobs. The proportionality of each one is going to depend
| on current economic conditions and not be a universal
| constant.
|
| But the part where you cause people to lose their jobs is
| _bad_ -- in some cases it will exceed the entire benefit
| of the remaining people getting paid more, but either way
| what it 's competing with isn't placebo, it's alternative
| policies to get people out of poverty. Why would you do
| the one that causes people to lose their jobs when there
| are several alternatives that don't?
| kimbernator wrote:
| No freedoms are being taken away, save for those of
| businesses that would like to increase their margins by
| paying their workers less.
|
| These fictional people who would love to work for less
| than $7.25/hr are free to do gig work that nets them
| less. They are also free to panhandle on the side of
| freeway off-ramps, which I imagine many would prefer to
| the concept of being paid $5/hour to take orders from a
| person who lacks enough respect for their fellow man to
| pay them more than that.
|
| The removal of the minimum wage would simply be a gift to
| employers taken from the pockets of actual workers.
| Businesses don't just pay the minimum wage out of the
| kindness of their hearts; to pay that wage is code for "I
| would pay you less if I could."
| gruez wrote:
| >No freedoms are being taken away [...]
|
| >These fictional people who would love to work for less
| than $7.25/hr are free to do gig work that nets them
| less. They are also free to panhandle on the side of
| freeway off-ramps,
|
| Being unable to work in a employment relationship, and
| forced to do "gig work" and "panhandle" doesn't count as
| "freedoms are being taken away"?
|
| >The removal of the minimum wage would simply be a gift
| to employers taken from the pockets of actual workers.
| Businesses don't just pay the minimum wage out of the
| kindness of their hearts; to pay that wage is code for "I
| would pay you less if I could."
|
| This is a case of fabricated options[1]. The possible
| outcomes aren't: a) worker makes $5/hr and b) worker gets
| makes $10/hr (the minimum wage). Sure, in some cases the
| employer might grumble but ultimately stump up the extra
| $5/hr, but it's also possible that the employer lets the
| worker worker go instead, automating his job or having
| his work shipped overseas instead.
|
| [1]
| https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/gNodQGNoPDjztasbh/lies-
| damn-...
| npoc wrote:
| If you want that and you aren't producing enough value to
| warrant it, why should someone else pay for it? Find some
| more valuable work to do, work harder
|
| In the UK you'll get benefits to top up your wage anyway.
| margalabargala wrote:
| > you aren't producing enough value to warrant it
|
| In industries where the availability of workers is high,
| the amount of value produced per worker does not
| particularly relate to the amount that that worker is paid.
|
| If the worker produces more than enough value to their
| employer that that employer _could_ pay them enough to live
| with dignity while also making a profit on that worker,
| then perhaps they ought be required to.
| ziddoap wrote:
| This is some "pull yourself up by your bootstraps"
| bullshit.
|
| There are many, _many_ situations where it is simply not
| possible to just "find more valuable work to do" or to
| just "work harder" and have it result in more money.
| npoc wrote:
| That doesn't mean that enforcing a minimum wage is the
| correct way to fix the problem. It's not.
| whatindaheck wrote:
| Someone has to collect the garbage, clean public restrooms,
| produce our food, etc.
|
| We can't all be CEOs. Society depends on these "lowly"
| jobs. If the three jobs above ceased to exist we'd all be
| in trouble. They're all important enough to warrant a
| dignity wage.
|
| In first grade we all learn that food, shelter, and water
| are the most basic living requirements. Add standard-of-
| living necessities such as internet, education, and
| healthcare access into the mix if you feel generous.
|
| How can we afford _NOT_ to provide basic requirements for
| these keystone jobs? Sure, they aren 't "innovating" the
| newest phone or providing value to shareholders (gross),
| but in many ways they're far more important.
|
| If you really want to own a Ferrari, or really anything
| extraneous, sure you should have to pull on those
| bootstraps. But not for food. Not for water. Not for
| shelter.
| gruez wrote:
| >We can't all be CEOs. Society depends on these "lowly"
| jobs. If the three jobs above ceased to exist we'd all be
| in trouble.
|
| This feels like a variant of "Nobody goes there anymore.
| It's too crowded". If there was some critical job that's
| going unfilled, the offering price will go up and up
| until someone bites, ensuring it will be filled.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > the minimum amount required to live peacefully and with
| dignity.
|
| The issue is that there is no such uniform amount.
|
| If your spouse makes 85% as much as the two of you need to
| live with dignity, you don't need to make as much as they do
| and may prefer not to because the lower-paying job is less
| difficult or more satisfying. For someone else it could be
| 95%, or 99%, or 250% and the second job is pure supplemental
| income, so what's the minimum meant to be here?
|
| The minimum wage doesn't account for costs. A job across the
| street from you means you don't need a car, don't have to pay
| for fuel or maintenance or transit tickets and don't have to
| spend hours in traffic (which you could have spent working
| and getting paid). For a long commute this difference in
| value can be more than the entire minimum wage.
|
| It's possible for jobs to provide training, which is
| attractive for entry-level workers or anyone trying to change
| occupations or learn new skills, because school otherwise
| costs money. But if you're spending extra hours "at work"
| getting trained while the value of the training comes out of
| your paycheck, there isn't any sensible "minimum wage" for
| this. You could be receiving $50,000/year worth of training
| while "getting paid" only $5000/year and you're the one
| coming out ahead because you don't otherwise qualify for a
| job that pays $55,000/year. You might still be ahead if you
| were _paying them_ $5000 /year.
|
| So how are you supposed to set a minimum wage if the "minimum
| amount required to live peacefully and with dignity" is
| different for everyone, and setting it below that threshold
| deprives people of valuable alternatives?
| pastacacioepepe wrote:
| > people who are happy to work for less
|
| I wonder where are these people. Do you know any? Would you be
| "happy" to work for less than minimum wage?
|
| > it creates an effect similar to communism
|
| Sure, gommunism is when minimum wage. Most of Europe is in fact
| gommunist today, while its bourgeoisie gets richer and richer
| by the year.
| kimbernator wrote:
| In my experience, most minimum wage jobs are awful; tedious,
| boring, and often with a lot of physical exertion. Add to
| that the fact that you're unlikely to be treated with much
| respect by your supervisor or the public (if applicable).
|
| I'd wager that the number of people who are truly content
| doing this work as opposed to a higher-paying job is
| effectively zero. That is to say, a number of people so low
| that it is irrelevant.
| npoc wrote:
| > I wonder where are these people. Do you know any? Would you
| be "happy" to work for less than minimum wage?
|
| I'd be very happy to work for less than the minimum wage if
| that's all my work was worth and the alternative was no job..
|
| > Sure, gommunism is when minimum wage. Most of Europe is in
| fact gommunist today, while its bourgeoisie gets richer and
| richer by the year.
|
| The root cause of this wealth disparity is the fiat money
| printing. The value of the units of currency are halving
| every decade without people realising, so most people have
| been getting an annual real wage cut for the last 53 years
| only offset by consumables becoming less valuable through
| efficiencies of production. The prices of hard assets like
| real estate show the true extent of the currency debasement.
| LesZedCB wrote:
| printing money obviously can't be the "root" cause because
| it's not an independent variable - it's the product of a
| social institution implementing policy which was decided
| on.
|
| so, who decided? why? to benefit whom? i suppose therein
| lies the root cause.
| npoc wrote:
| A policy decided on through a collusion between
| government and the private central banks, which benefits
| both of them and steals from the population through the
| Cantillon effect and the stealth real wage reduction.
|
| Workers are getting pay cuts while thinking they are
| getting pay rises, and they then blame the shops who have
| to ask for increasing numbers of the the devaluing units
| of currency in exchange for the same item.
| kimbernator wrote:
| > I'd be very happy to work for less than the minimum wage
| if that's all my work was worth and the alternative was no
| job.
|
| Is this a scenario you feel you are qualified to answer
| for? Have you, as somebody with meaningful living expenses,
| ever been in a scenario like this? If not, I'm certain you
| do not have an accurate picture of what that would be like
| and what you would consider your options to be.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| I probably shouldn't respond to comments that are rather
| unserious, but I suppose you got me.
|
| I'd say that the US national minimum wage has already
| effectively been scrapped through neglect (I assume mostly
| willful neglect), so congrats?
| grayhatter wrote:
| > a) prevents people who are happy to work for less obtain a
| job which is uneconomical at the minimum wage, or
|
| Can you convince me this argument isn't also in support of
| slavery? (through fear)
|
| Or was that actually the point and you mean to advocate for
| slavery?
|
| Your arguments for b are equally malignant. If you will pay
| someone the minimum mage, for a minimum amount of work, and
| everyone else who could perform a higher standard doesn't
| because you refuse to pay them more than the minimum wage,
| good! Providing equal value of effort for value of compensation
| isn't communism, that's known as capitalism.
| firewire wrote:
| Nations lacking a minimum wage like Singapore and Norway
| aren't exactly rife with slavery.
| LesZedCB wrote:
| norway is highly unionized and particular sectors do
| implement minimum wages.
|
| singapore is uh... ranked 149 out of 157 in the oxfam
| inequality index.......
| drawkward wrote:
| >This leads to the higher quality workers reducing their
| output, as they are only getting the paid the same as someone
| producing work of, for example, half the value of their own.
|
| [Citation needed]
| slibhb wrote:
| People like to talk about inequality but absolute poverty seems
| like a more important target. Satya Nadella having more money
| than me doesn't make my life worse; I'm more concerned about the
| availability of jobs, food, housing, etc.
|
| That said, CEO salary does strike me as strange. Who needs 8
| million per year + stock? I'd think more CEOs would voluntarily
| take a pay cut.
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| _The Spirit Level_ [1] makes a good argument for why more equal
| societies benefit everyone within them. At the very least, I
| think it 's fair to say that "Satya Nadella having more money
| than me doesn't make my life worse" is not definitively true.
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level_(book)
| amelius wrote:
| I'm ok with people working hard and getting paid for it. I'm
| not ok with those people using their money against me in any
| way, which is what still happens and nobody talks about.
| digging wrote:
| > I'm ok with people working hard and getting paid for it
|
| Is that an accurate description of CEOs worth billions of
| dollars though? How hard are they supposedly working? I'm
| probably lazier than most of them as an IC with
| disabilities and non-work interests... but it's not humanly
| possible that they get ~40,000 times as much done in a day
| as I do.
| Snow_Falls wrote:
| If hard work were accurately linked to monetary benefit,
| poor African substinamce farmers would be some of the
| richest people on earth. Clearly that isn't the case,
| money come from more thanjust hard work. Luck has a lot
| to do with it, such as not being born an African
| substinamce farmer.
| margalabargala wrote:
| I think you and the person you replied to are talking about
| two different things here.
|
| OP is saying "in terms of goals, the end goal should be
| reduction of poverty, not reduction of rich people".
|
| You're saying "in reality, data says that reduction of rich
| people tends to correlate with reduction of poverty", thus
| opening up reduction of rich people as one potential path
| towards the reduction of poverty.
|
| I don't think it's been definitively demonstrated that the
| existence of rich people necessitates the existence of
| poverty. I would agree that, in reality, the creation of rich
| people tends to also lead to the creation of poverty.
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| There's rich people, and then there's the ultra rich
| people. It just doesn't seem possible to become a
| billionaire through ethical means.
| renewiltord wrote:
| James Patterson just wrote books people like and he's a
| billionaire. Are murder stories unethical or something?
| Philpax wrote:
| Does he write his own books, though? [0] [1] [2]
|
| It's his name on the front of the book, but he is not
| necessarily the primary author. That sounds a little
| unethical to me.
|
| [0] https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/books/380231/
| James-P...
|
| [1] https://theconversation.com/why-you-dont-need-to-
| write-much-...
|
| [2] https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-
| entertainment/books/featu...
| renewiltord wrote:
| Stephen King then? Or J K Rowling? They became
| billionaires off their work and wrote all their own work
| if image rights are unethical to you.
|
| Taylor Swift, perhaps? Paul McCartney. You only need one
| example to disprove the case.
|
| It doesn't seem ridiculous that if you make something and
| charge $10 and 100 million people pay you that you're
| necessarily doing something unethical.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| What society reduced it's rich people and increased the
| average richness? When I think of the concept my mind jumps
| to stalin eliminating the kulaks, or mao and the cultural
| revolution, or pol pot, which ended up helping destroy
| their society, not make everyone wealthier.
| beaeglebeached wrote:
| When the rich get rich via redistribution of value rather
| than generation of value, average richness rises after
| those rich are deposed.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| What examples are there of that?
| beaeglebeached wrote:
| As crazy as it sounds, the cuban revolution up until the
| late 80s. While their communist economic system was far
| from ideal, it saw significant rising GDP/cap vs the days
| when farm labor were like slaves and their output
| redistributed to petty farm masters under Batistas
| favored rich men.
| digging wrote:
| > You're saying "in reality, data says that reduction of
| rich people tends to correlate with reduction of poverty",
| thus opening up reduction of rich people as one potential
| path towards the reduction of poverty.
|
| That may be true, but I personally also think curbing the
| wealth of the extremely wealthy _is_ a worthwhile goal in
| its own right. It 's dangerous to give individuals so much
| power, which is one of the most common lessons in the last
| 10,000 years of media and also blatantly obvious from the
| ways many billionaires (and non-billionaires, frankly) use
| that money to manipulate, harm, disenfranchise, and silence
| the public.
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| Even if any singular ultra wealthy person is doing nice
| things, you'll still have bad actors like the Koch brothers
| who are actively trying (and succeeding) to subvert our
| government systems to their own benefit.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Ko.
| ..
|
| Which is why we need governmental solutions, laws, taxes, etc
| and can't rely on just good will.
|
| I havent read the book you recomended, but I will check it
| out. I'd also recomend the book "On Corruption in America:
| And What Is at Stake" as it's a great description of how
| global elites have largely captured government for their own
| ends since the gilded age.
| EnigmaFlare wrote:
| That's just political campaigning, isn't it? How is that
| "subverting" or "bad actors"?
| scottyah wrote:
| Because they're the bad guys
| jdietrich wrote:
| The "Re-analyses and alleged failures to replicate" section
| of that Wikipedia article is really rather important - the
| idea that inequality causes problems independent of poverty
| relies on a lot of questionable assumptions and analyses.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > Satya Nadella having more money than me doesn't make my life
| worse;
|
| Are you sure about that? What if he spends that money
| supporting political figures and economic policies that make
| your life worse?
| kurisufag wrote:
| following this line of logic would mean that /anyone/ having
| more capital than you is evidence of wrongness, including
| social capital.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| It's not evidence of wrongness, but money is power.
| Especially in a post "Citizens United" world. My point is
| that saying that the vast income inequality being discussed
| does no harm to those at the bottom is inaccurate. At the
| very least it reduces the ability of the average person to
| influence their own government.
| Shacklz wrote:
| There's a difference between 'having more capital' and
| 'having absolutely absurd amounts of capitals'.
|
| If you look at income distribution graphs of the last few
| decades and the political influence those in the highest
| percentiles wielded, it's not entirely unfair to question
| whether this might make the life of the average citizen
| "worse".
| digging wrote:
| Yeah, pretty much, it's _wrong_ to hand disproportionate
| power to individuals without checks on how that power is
| used to influence society, and we have very few such checks
| on extremely large amounts of money.
| underbluewaters wrote:
| This is very not true since many (most) things we spend money
| on are in limited supply. I can make what I think is good
| money, but if remote FAANG workers decide to settle nearby then
| I suddenly can't afford a house. Same for automobiles after
| COVID, meat at the market, etc.
| warner25 wrote:
| Yes, I've lived in Hawaii and coastal California where the
| availability of housing does seem to be heavily impacted by
| very wealthy people being able to buy up second and third
| (multi-million dollar) homes. A lot of regular wage earners
| (including professionals with six-figure incomes) are priced
| out of the market and these homes sit empty for most of the
| year; the owners are so wealthy that they don't even bother
| to rent them out when they aren't using them. Jobs are
| available, but people can't afford to live near their jobs.
| beaeglebeached wrote:
| Hawaii has an abundance of underutilized land through a
| combination of bad zoning/regulation (anti-market violence)
| and civil rights violations ( Hawaiian 'homelands' which
| reserves much public state owned lands to only people 'of
| the blood of the [right] races').
|
| The housing issues are at best partially caused by the
| rich; plenty of places to put a cheap tar paper shack but
| for whatever non-market reason you cannot.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Thanks for this comment. I was going to make a similar one,
| but you beat me to it. Standard of living tends to be
| relative because of gentrification. Say you're making $X/yr
| and spend $Y/yr on groceries, gas, housing, and so on. Then a
| bunch of people making $5X start moving in to your
| neighborhood, slowly prices for everything are going to rise
| and now you're still making $X/yr but costs are approaching
| $5Y/yr on all your stuff.
|
| Also, at least in the USA, money is efficiently convertible
| to and from political power. So outsized wealth translates
| into outsized political power. Satya Nadella having far more
| money than I means he also has far more political clout than
| I have.
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| > Satya Nadella having more money than me doesn't make my life
| worse; I'm more concerned about the availability of jobs, food,
| housing, etc.
|
| Does Satya Nadella not giving all of his extra monies to better
| causes and instead keeping it for himself make the lives of
| others (those in poverty) worse? Or "not better"? aka
| "billionaires choose to retain some portion of their
| earnings/wealth instead of dedicating it to poverty"
|
| Then the question becomes "why do we expect those with a lot of
| money to selflessly not want to keep the money for themselves
| and instead give back/give it away"
| COGlory wrote:
| This logic only applies when the economy is growing faster than
| inflation. As soon as it levels off (or dips below) as it has
| since the 70s, this becomes patently false.
| izzydata wrote:
| Having some amount of more money than you doesn't make your
| life worse, but eventually it does. I don't mind people having
| millions upon millions of dollars and having lots of houses and
| cars and things. However, once you have enough money to start
| affecting politics than it can very easily make your life
| worse.
| rhplus wrote:
| _Who needs 8 million per year + stock?_
|
| Two words: generational wealth. Such CEO salaries are legacy
| builders. That's why no-one in their right mind would turn it
| down.
| DonnyV wrote:
| Reducing the wealth of the ultra rich is not just about
| resource allocation. Its also about how much power a single
| person should have within the community they live in. With that
| kind of money people can buy off regulators, politicians, law
| enforcement, whole towns, financial intuitions , etc. You
| really don't want a person or group of people to have that much
| power over a community.
| madsbuch wrote:
| > Satya Nadella having more money than me doesn't make my life
| worse;
|
| That is simply not true. Money is not an absolut good, but
| relative. When a few people own a large portion of money, that
| affords them the power to decide what people do and usually
| makes their life worse.
| dudeinjapan wrote:
| Next time I'm going to apply for one of those CEO jobs rather
| than minimum wage.
| tombert wrote:
| I mean, you could just ask your next job if they'll match one
| of those CEO salaries. Who's to say that they'll say no?
| ilaksh wrote:
| I think it's strange that only a few of the richest countries are
| represented here. It would be good to include wages for something
| like 1) a software engineer in a less major Mexican city, 2) we
| can also compare with a restaurant worker in California which
| starting in April will be $20/hr, 3) minimum wage worker in poor
| country, 4) immigrant/unofficial worker in poor country not being
| given minimum wage, etc.
| kurisufag wrote:
| this doesn't really have the intended effect on me, at least out
| of all the tools in the field of comparing-wealth-visually.
|
| by the time I finished reading the text, the US minwage clock was
| at 10c, and in the time it took me to get to this sentence, it's
| half a dollar, an amount I certainly wouldn't object to for a few
| minutes of effort.
| jampekka wrote:
| CEOs at least in theory do some labor for their (totally obscene)
| pay. Stockholders get paid without doing a thing.
|
| Not to say that there's anything reasonable with the wage
| inequality. Rather that the situation is probably worse than you
| may think.
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| Huh. So looking at the numbers, this comparison came to mind:
|
| In the time it takes someone working minimum wage to make enough
| to afford a single $0.25 gumball, Sundar Pichai makes enough to
| afford an Apple Vision Pro ($3500) plus tax.
| dudeinjapan wrote:
| How the world works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDQXFNWuZj8
| kyrra wrote:
| As a reminder, minimum wage is not what the government sets it
| at, it's zero ($0). If a company doesn't feel they get enough
| value out of hiring someone for a position for the government
| mandated minimum wage, they just won't hire that person.
|
| Thomas Sowell makes this point regularly in his books. Here's
| some related points on minimum wage laws:
| https://www.aei.org/economics/thomas-sowell-on-the-cruelty-o...
| drawkward wrote:
| As a reminder, no one who uses the term "minimum wage" (aside
| from perhaps some academics and those who like to sound
| superior to others) means what Mr. Sowell means.
| xpressvideoz wrote:
| By that logic, every operating expense and capital expenditure
| is also zero, because if it doesn't make money, a company won't
| purchase anything.
| kyrra wrote:
| Maybe I'm missing something, but I agree? Business ideas
| regularly don't happen because it's to expensive to operate
| in a given field.
|
| Children's toys and equipment is an example. They have lots
| of regulation around requirements for recall procedures and
| product registration that add a lot of operational overhead
| for launching products in that space. Many businesses shy
| away from it because of those expenses, making it so certain
| ideas will never materialize there.
|
| Sometimes these kinds of regulations are good, sometimes they
| are not, but they are always limiting and the regulation
| steers the decisions private businesses will make.
| Vegenoid wrote:
| This definition is trivial, pedantic, and I would say
| incorrect. If someone isn't employed, their wage isn't $0 -
| they simply do not have a wage.
|
| 0 != null
|
| There is an argument to made that minimum wage laws reduce
| employability of low-skill employees. While many people will
| already come into that argument with some disdain and
| hostility, starting the argument with "As a reminder, the
| minimum wage is actually $0" is a surefire way to raise
| hackles.
| mlsu wrote:
| The most remarkable thing to me about this to me isn't
| necessarily the disparity between CEO and min wage (I already
| knew it was crazy).
|
| Instead, it's the differences between CEO compensation.
|
| Sundar is making $300 to Satya's $65? _what?_
|
| I know it's an estimate and the numbers are made up at that level
| but still!
| warner25 wrote:
| I wonder a lot about what motivates people at that level, and
| about how these negotiations go. As someone who has always been
| a W-2 employee, and who has never had much individual
| negotiating power, it feels impossible to wrap my head around
| this.
|
| On one hand, if I could get compensation in the hundreds of
| millions per year, it's tempting to think that I'd "work" for
| six months and then retire with wealth beyond my wildest
| dreams. On the other hand, nobody appears to do that. So maybe
| it's lifestyle inflation, or maybe it's just intoxicating to
| have that kind of power and status and everything that comes
| with it besides the money. The existence of government
| executives and military flag officers, who aren't even paid
| that much money and could retire whenever they want with
| generous pensions, seems to indicate that money isn't the
| primary motivation.
|
| In terms of negotiations, it's hard to imagine that the boards
| of Alphabet or Microsoft couldn't find someone equally
| qualified to take the CEO job for less than these amounts.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| I'm assuming it's a selection bias. If the CEO can retire
| absurdly wealthy in six months, and the VP of whatever can
| "only" retire in a couple years, then the VP is probably
| going to retire before they reach the C-suite. The only
| people left to get promoted to the C-suite are the ones for
| whom it's a type A lifestyle or something.
|
| Likewise if Zuck had been content selling to google and
| retiring to an island or wherever, he probably wouldn't have
| become a name we all still know.
| Romanulus wrote:
| Could you expect much more from an '.lgbt' domain?
| Veserv wrote:
| You think that is big. Mark Zuckerberg received ~436x the
| average US worker. Elon Musk received ~462x Mark Zuckerberg.
|
| Elon Musk to Mark Zuckerberg is bigger than the difference
| between Mark Zuckerberg to the average US worker.
|
| To be fair, Mark Zuckerberg does probably make more money from
| the appreciation of their existing stock rather than their new
| compensation. David Zaslav, the second lowest listed on the
| website does ~630x the average worker and Elon Musk makes ~320x
| David Zaslav.
|
| The average S&P 500 CEO does ~270x the average worker and
| ~1110x the minimum wage. Elon Musk makes ~750x the average S&P
| 500 CEO. Elon Musk makes the average S&P 500 CEO look
| proportionally poorer than the average worker and almost makes
| enough to make the average S&P 500 CEO look like a minimum wage
| worker.
| TriangleEdge wrote:
| Given there's a number of countries competing with their
| economies, they are subject to the evolution and survival of the
| fittest. If there was a better way to do things, if would occur
| naturally. Clearly, given capitalism gave birth to the largest
| economy of the world, it won't go away anytime soon.
| ensignavenger wrote:
| A few things that should be noted: US Youth Minimum Wage is only
| in effect for the first 90 consecutive days of employment. I
| don't think its use is very widespread- probably used only by
| some youth summer employment or training programs- almost
| certainly not by any of the companies whose CEOs are mentioned.
|
| It would also be interesting to show what % of the mentioned
| CEO's employees make minimum wage... I would wager it would be
| very close, if not 0. Minimum wage is usually paid by smaller,
| more local operations.
| willwade wrote:
| neat. is there a version anywhere you can put your own pay in?
| iteratethis wrote:
| Some people think billionaires should be more heavily taxed,
| which they call a redistribution of wealth. I think that is a
| bizarre take because the original distribution is conceptually
| absurd to begin with.
|
| Think about it. You create a thing, a useful thing. We value that
| at 100K and given your outsized role in bringing it into
| existence, you have an equity of 40%. In absolute terms, you'd
| have 40K at this point, which seems perfectly fine.
|
| Next, you (help to) scale this company up to a valuation of
| $100B. Your stake is now $40B.
|
| The percentage is the problem here. It's a wild concept to be a
| procentual owner of a thing of an indefinite size which can only
| typically be scaled up by the labor of thousands of others.
|
| It's a concept we made up. It does not exist in material reality.
| You did not produce the value from $40K to $40B, yet you're
| rewarded it anyway.
|
| You did produce some value, quite a lot even, which would justify
| a (very) high salary. Equity sure is a great way to get rich
| quickly and I know a lot of you are in the game, but it's a
| strange concept regardless.
| toss1 wrote:
| Excellent!
|
| Suggestion: Put the CEO salaries on the same row as the minimum
| wage, to show the contrast without scrolling down.
|
| This is one of the major things that is breaking our society.
| quantum_state wrote:
| The huge discrepancy between the low and high ends is a shame of
| civilization.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| Instead of CEOs, I think it would be more interesting to compare
| it to, say median wage, and the first decile.
|
| We know that top CEOs make a lot of money, but it is not really
| relatable. But if you are a software engineer for instance,
| seeing how much faster your own clock ticks compared to minimum
| wage could be interesting. We probably all know some minimum
| wage, median and 1st decile workers personally. We are less
| familiar with top CEOs.
| Nevermark wrote:
| I do believe that inequality like these clocks demonstrate,
| heavily reflects inequity (a lack of fairness).
|
| But the only people "harmed" by a CEO's high pay are the workers
| of the same company, since they are the one's with a "zero sum"
| split of the company's revenue. (I.e. the money split between all
| employees (as expenses) and shareholder profits).
|
| Lack of fairness, to me, mostly starts with inequitable health,
| education at an early age, and parents in survival mode.
|
| I don't think fixing the last is as easy as increasing minimum
| wage, given that adds even more incentives to replace workers
| with automation. But the planet has untapped resources, not there
| due to any human investment or effort, whose raw value would go a
| long way toward lifting many people out of poverty, if that value
| was shared. (And without taking anything from the value created
| by those who extract and transform those resources.)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-01-04 23:01 UTC)