AOC suggests low-income Americans should boycott work

[Dashinka 24,973]

Just now, sl1pstream said:

Isn't that why she's suggesting a strike? I don't see how those are complete opposites.

She is suggesting a strike to artificially dictate the marketplace.  Wages are set by the market, both the supply of and demand of the workforce.  Having a government artificially dictate this is just wrong.  A regulated capitalistic economy provides a lot of opportunity for people to improve their situations if they are willing to try.  

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Unions are inherently socialist in their overall function, but sure, they have the right to strike, and as to private sector unions that is fine.  As to public sector unions, those should not exist, even FDR was against those.

 

People work to provide for themselves and their family, and they work in a free market system.  AOC is suggesting the government should take this over which puts us in the same boat as the former USSR.

 

  Nothing wrong with having a mix of both.

[sl1pstream 551]

9 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

She is suggesting a strike to artificially dictate the marketplace.  Wages are set by the market, both the supply of and demand of the workforce.  Having a government artificially dictate this is just wrong.  A regulated capitalistic economy provides a lot of opportunity for people to improve their situations if they are willing to try.  

So are you saying regulation is good, because it seems like a decent minimum wage could also be regulated.

 

Or are you saying regulation is bad, because I'm pretty sure that safety regulations and the end of child labor were the result of regulation?

[Dashinka 24,973]

18 minutes ago, sl1pstream said:

So are you saying regulation is good, because it seems like a decent minimum wage could also be regulated.

 

Or are you saying regulation is bad, because I'm pretty sure that safety regulations and the end of child labor were the result of regulation?

Some regulation is required, particularly environmental, and safety, or keeping a monopoly from forming. Artificial wage floors are not correct, the marketplace should set those.  Again, I am not in favor of unfettered capitalism, but when governments start doing things like wage or price fixing, it only leads to bad outcomes.  Not every job out there should be considered a career.

25 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Nothing wrong with having a mix of both.

A mix of the government controlling the economic capital and dictating markets?

[sl1pstream 551]

19 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Not every job out there should be considered a career.

So who exactly are you expecting to work those jobs and why shouldn't they be paid correctly for the work they've done?

Edited April 24, 2020 by sl1pstream

[Dashinka 24,973]

4 minutes ago, sl1pstream said:

So who exactly are you expecting to work those jobs and why shouldn't they be paid correctly for the work they've done?

Entry level workers, and if they are paid according to the market and the laws of supply and demand, they are being paid correctly.

[sl1pstream 551]

10 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Entry level workers, and if they are paid according to the market and the laws of supply and demand, they are being paid correctly.

Striking for a living wage is a good way to change supply.

 

I don't really see why you're arguing for the industry. You're not gaining anything by having their staff be underpaid. If anything, paying them more and giving them benefits is going to increase productivity.

 

Working 70 hours a week and still not making ends meet isn't entry-level. That's modern slave labor.

Edited April 24, 2020 by sl1pstream

[Dashinka 24,973]

Just now, sl1pstream said:

Striking for a living wage is a good way to change supply.

 

I don't really see why you're arguing for the industry. You're not gaining anything by having their staff be underpaid. If anything, paying them more and giving them benefits is going to increase productivity.

I am not arguing that they be underpaid, I am arguing that they be paid according to the marketplace.  Paying them more than the market will bear will just lead to less people working through other means such as automation, etc.

[sl1pstream 551]

2 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

I am not arguing that they be underpaid, I am arguing that they be paid according to the marketplace.  Paying them more than the market will bear will just lead to less people working through other means such as automation, etc.

Judging by how much profit those companies make, I'm pretty sure that the market will be able to bear paying them correctly.
Automation is going to be a problem in pretty much every sector, that's not a valid excuse to only pay these people this little.

[Dashinka 24,973]

Just now, sl1pstream said:

Judging by how much profit those companies make, I'm pretty sure that the market will be able to bear paying them correctly.
Automation is going to be a problem in pretty much every sector, that's not a valid excuse to only pay these people this little.

You do know that most things like fast food restaurants, etc. are not corporate owned right.  Equating the profits of say a McDonalds corporation with that of an individual franchisee owned location is not a valid argument.

[Ban Hammer 13,722]

1 hour ago, sl1pstream said:

Striking for a living wage is a good way to change supply.

 

 

it's also a good way to be broke.  if one is going to strike, they better have a skill set that makes them not easily replaceable.

Edited April 24, 2020 by Ban Hammer

[sl1pstream 551]

15 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

it's also a good way to be broke.  if one is going to strike, they better have a skill set that makes them not easily replaceable.

Customer service is a skill.

[Ban Hammer 13,722]

6 minutes ago, sl1pstream said:

Customer service is a skill.

that can be easily trained.  next.

[sl1pstream 551]

Just now, Ban Hammer said:

that can be easily trained.  next.

Then let them strike, if it's that easy they'll be replaced. If the movement is big enough they'll cause changes, like every other movement throughout history. I don't get why everyone seems so threatened by this.

[Ban Hammer 13,722]

7 minutes ago, sl1pstream said:

Then let them strike, if it's that easy they'll be replaced. If the movement is big enough they'll cause changes, like every other movement throughout history. I don't get why everyone seems so threatened by this.

i don't believe anyone feels threatened by this.  who said they felt threatened?

the point that seems to be missed is this - telling people who have no marketable skill set (and by that i'm referring to above high school education/degree, government security clearance, industry standard certification, and

so on)  that they should strike is reckless.  it's not those telling these people to strike that will suffer the consequences of that action.