this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
903 points (85.5% liked)

Antiwork

8292 readers
3 users here now

  1. We're trying to improving working conditions and pay.

  2. We're trying to reduce the numbers of hours a person has to work.

  3. We talk about the end of paid work being mandatory for survival.

Partnerships:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

...but we need to be compensated for those contributions accordingly.

This is the part they object to, thanks to the proliferation of Econ 101 thinking. Market wages are, after all, competitive by definition. For someone that hasn't gone beyond basic economics, what you're paid for the work you do is fair compensation.

The anti-work rhetoric is, first of all, incredibly misleading for people who take things at face value. But more important, the underlying theory for why market wages aren't fair is different for each person you talk to. There is no coherent, rhetorically forceful reasoning for why people should be paid more. And separate messages that arrive at the same conclusion aren't really effective at scale.

[–] misterfenskers@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Getting paid better would be nice, but that will just bring the middle class closer to poverty. I've been a part of this community for a few years now and I have been fighting for better wages this whole time. But the biggest pain to me is inflation. Things keep costing more and more, but I keep making the same amount of money. Wouldn't price regulations be a better solution to all of this to all of this? Not trying to start a fight, but looking for a slight skew from the topic.

[–] uis@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Getting paid better would be nice, but that will just bring the middle class closer to poverty

This is not how math work. If you add 10% to wage for everyone, then nothing will change(with few exceptions that will become more affordable, mostly some sorts of taxes). But if you add 100$ to wage for everyone, then rich become sloghtly less rich, poor will become relatively richer and middle class will be slightly richer.

But the biggest pain to me is inflation. Things keep costing more and more, but I keep making the same amount of money.

The biggest problem is not inflation itself, but that capitalists when increase price of product will not increase wage of worker. If there is deflation, then capitalist will cut wages, but keep prices high

[–] misterfenskers@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Regulations for everything would not allow the greedy pigs to make their own rules. What you're asking for is that they gain some sort of heart and start valuing something other than their products. That won't happen. I really think regulation is a better plan because it's creating laws that cap profits. Then we can hit em with their own medicine and up the minimum wage too. Maybe even put a maximum wage out there.

Maybe I've seen too much star trek and I'm believing that the socialist/communist utopia exists out there someday. Maybe I'm crazy. All I know for sure is I don't like the hand I was delt and it's way too hard to fold.

[–] uis@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Maybe even put a maximum wage out there.

Reminds me Savateev's proposed education reform. Cap school directors' wage at something like 2x-3x of lowest of top-60%(below median) teachers' wages in conjunction with banning overtime more than 50%(hard cap work time at 150% of normal, currently over 200% is common practice which is really bad).

[–] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wouldn’t price regulations be a better solution to all of this

What would that solve though?

I mean say, a loaf of bread is price regulated at $3/loaf. Do we treat it like the minimum wage and let it sit there for 15 years at $3? What about bread producers? After a few years, they're certainly not getting paid the market price for their production. Is that justified to ensure that bread remains at $3?

The problems of price controls are demonstrated quite convincingly with rent controls versus just building affordable housing: the former doesn't increase the housing supply which means, even if rent is affordable, some people remain homeless.

Idk, how are thinking about it?

[–] uis@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

After a few years, they're certainly not getting paid the market price for their production.

Why not? When monopoly sets price it is market price, but when monopsony-like actor does same it is not?

versus just building affordable housing: the former doesn't increase the housing supply which means, even if rent is affordable, some people remain homeless.

I recommend you to watch Rossmann's walks around NYC where he just shows places that can be rented, but nobody does for 10 years. It is not because there is not enough supply, there was oversupply even before pandemic, just a lot of companies prefer to let place rot, then rent at ~~fair~~ literally market price because it will bring down rent on other places. Well, for housing there is also ban of everything that is not single-family shed or humant colony.