I stole this to report with it as the title since it was removed for bad title. Thanks! Hope it doesn’t get removed again

I mean it did happen that way

Was that a Tesla on autopilot??

This is fascinating, thank you. Wow, women and minorities really get written out of US history! Which just perpetuates the narrative that white men are superior.

But what you’re saying doesn’t support your argument. How would robots impact wages? You’re saying robots would replace workers which means wages by you’re own words should increase wages Bc they would eliminate the low wage workers and increase more skilled workers to oversee the robots. I’m not understanding how robots would cause wages to be stagnate.

Also the NFL does have a CEO. And the CEO makes about $40 million a year. That’s higher than all NFL players. But the higher NFL players make around $20m a year. So the NFL is an example of an organization that pays people fairly in comparison to the CEO so we don’t need to talk about the players salaries.

You’re not understanding the one pot. Sure they can generate different revenue streams but they need people to make the widgets or to sell the widgets. Also simple employees are capable of this. Employees have come up with ideas and products too. In fact some people’s whole job is to come up with new products like I have a friend who works in Mattel creating new toys. That’s not a CEO job. But it’s not the same as athletes that can make money not through the NFL just on their name and likeness. That’s a completely different pot.

Show me some proof of technology being the reason wages are stagnate. Because that doesn’t make sense to me. Someone has to oversee the robots and fix them. There should be more money for that person because the company has saved money on implementing robots. Also we still need manual laborers.

With government subsidies what you are saying is you feel it’s more appropriate for taxpayers to pay for working people to live then the company they work for. Explain that logic to me. Why would that be appropriate?

Because minimum wage earners USE TO earn enough to live. You’re only surprised because you’re jaded and it’s been normalized that low wage workers literally can’t live without governmental assistance.

You said people should work harder to learn skills and I’m saying that that use to be the case when minimum wage workers could pay for college. Now they can’t. So how do you plan that they learn skills if they can’t pay for the training?

I just responded to this. The CEO is part of the company that splits the earnings. They are not a small percent if the population. Every single company has a CEO and every single company has minimum wage workers allocating the profit amongst the employees.

Bc in a company there are only a certain amount of earnings. For example if Amazon makes 1 billion dollars a year in profit and the CEO use to make 300 times the average worker but now makes 900 times. That means the same 1 billion dollars is just being heavily reallocated from workers to the CEO. Because there’s only one pot of money… the profit.

However with celebrities or athletes there is not one pot. They can literally generate their own pot. Like jersey sales. It’s not the same comparison and even still if they were paying the third string quarterback minimum wage, we would be talking about tom Brady’s salary but that’s not the case.

A couple things…

It’s the same issue that you are underpaid and minimum wage is too low. All wages need to increase and once minimum wage does so will other because employers have to pay to attract skills.

If you can’t life off minimum wage jobs, then who should work them? If you can’t pay rent and feed yourself on minimum wage jobs then you’ll never be able to learn skills or get a higher paid job because you’re stuck in a perpetual game of survival. Minimum wage earners can’t pay rent.

Even college kids in the 60s used to be able to work minimum wage jobs to pay for college. Now that’s laughable. Wage growth has slowed since the 70s. Meanwhile CEO compensation has grown 940%.

So what happens is these minimum wage earners apply for all sorts of government assistance- food stamps, Medicaid, housing assistance. And we, the taxpayers, end up supplementing their income while the company executives and shareholders make billions.

In other countries the minimum wage is higher and McDonald’s still operates there with marginal difference in prices. McDonald’s workers in Denmark are paid $22/hr + 6 wks paid vacation. The cost of a Big Mac in Denmark is around $5.15, compared to $4.80 in the U.S.

Prices will always rise and so should wages. But right now people can’t afford the high prices so taxpayers are supplementing the difference. If minimum wage increased employees could afford the high prices and it would relieve the burden from the tax payers. And crazy idea then maybe we could pay down our debt?!

It seems like a stretch that Republicans say “you’re free… to do what we say”? Aren’t we seeing this happen right now with governors making mask mandates illegal but championing businesses freedom?

Sounds like Republicans

EDIT: My comment is not comparing Republicans to terrorists, although there are some parallels, it’s not the intention of this comment. My comment is a response to the preceding comment I responded to- “you are free… to do what we say”. That’s what I said sounds like Republicans.

Yup!

https://youtu.be/gdwNgpUIipE

This video is a good summary of him and what’s going on

Thank you! I was wondering the same. IMO assuming they are rich bc of looks is racist. We assume white people have money. But you’re right… he may have pawned things or maxed out credit cards or crowd funded etc, in truth we have no idea. People’s immediate assumption says more about them than the couple.

Also 3 kids all about 6/8/10 at 30?? Who’s goal is that? And how would you be able to afford the house, the wedding, the car if you were having children at 20??

But how dare someone have diverse friends

Let see if I understand your perspective… Whatever a job offers you, is what you deserve. Those who have higher earning jobs deserve more from a company than those who don’t. And if your job creates a culture where supervisors pressure subordinates to work off the clock, it’s just smart business. Or if an employer takes advantage of your documented status and locks in workers or pays them less than legally allowed, it’s smart business and the employees fault for not leaving.

Idk what your job searches have been like but I have two degrees and it’s never taken me less than 1 month to get a new job. Just due to interviews, paper work, corporation checks, etc. so even I don’t really have the privilege of just walking away from a job the moment I’m unhappy or treated unfairly.

This back and forth has been fun for the most part and I appreciate that you never made things personal or made personal attacks against me. But it seems your idea of the world is the way you think it should be and not the way it is. You are convinced that UI creates bad actors but were unable to provided any evidence of that. And when I provided evidence of bad companies, you found a way to blame the worker. It doesn’t really seem like you’re receptive to evidence or real situations so this has devolved into an unproductive and circular conversation.

I wish we lived in a world where corporations don’t exploit its workers and people could easily find new jobs in a day without the threat of not being able to pay bills or the fear of other companies doing worse to them. Unfortunately the numerous violations cited against companies and employee horror stories is evidence we don’t live in that world.

“7-11 was investigated for luring Pakistani immigrants into the US, falsifying their identities, and forcing them to work in the stores for more than 100 hours per week. They also forced the immigrants to live in 7-11 owned boarding houses and removed their rent from their paychecks.”

“Ashley Furniture faces $1.76M in fines after OSHA finds more than 1,000 worker injuries at Wisconsin site in past 36 months”

It’s not just lower class jobs either. There are reported stories of long hours and grueling working circumstances for newly hired layers and investment bankers. There had to be regulated maximum hours for Medical residents because they were taken advantage of since they need residency to become doctors and patients were dying as a result.

I’m sure you’ll find a way to blame the employees. Ask yourself why that is. Why do you feel such a strong desire to defend companies? Why is it so easy for you to call out bad actors in employees and then rationalize employers bad actions?

Anyways, thanks for taking the time and effort to discuss! I’m out! ✌️

But they didn’t agree which is why they then called to report them. Also no once you have a contract with an employer that’s it. You don’t hire someone at $8 an hour and then say well it’s Tuesday so I’m only paying you $7 and if they say ok then it’s all good.

The company is taking advantage of employees by not paying them what they told them they would pay. The companies only motive is the bottom line which is selfish.

You really struggle with definitions. Slavery is exploration. Having an employee work for no pay is exploration. Regardless of whether or not they “agree” in the moment.

“Yuri Callejas, a 40-year-old single mother, cleaned hotel rooms at a Fairfield Inn & Suites franchise in Pelham, Alabama. Callejas complained to her boss that he was paying her only $9 an hour when she was hired at $10 an hour, according to a lawsuit filed in January 2020 in federal court. Though she said she was working more than 40 hours a week, she wasn’t getting paid overtime, either, according to the complaint.

Her boss refused to change her pay rate, the complaint said, so she quit. Her accounting of how much she was owed: $1,272.”

She did what you suggested… she quit and sued and won. Can you see how the company exploited her?

Working off the clock is not getting paid for your work. That’s exploitation

Sure it’s monetarily smart to have slave labor. It’s also exploration.

So wouldn’t anyone who got and kept a job be worthy? just not the lower class jobs? For reasons you still haven’t explained.

“Exploitation is the act of selfishly taking advantage of someone or a group of people in order to profit from them or otherwise benefit oneself.”

The thousands of companies taking millions from employees… wage theft is exploitation.

“Victims of wage theft toil on the lower rungs of the workforce. People like Danielle Wynne, a $10-an-hour convenience store clerk in Florida who said her boss ordered her to work off the clock, and Ruth Palacios, a janitor from Mexico who earned less than the minimum wage to disinfect a New York City hospital at the height of the pandemic.”

Why would the job title/position determined deservedness rather than job performance? You don’t get paid for getting the job, you get paid for doing the job. There’s lots of nepotism in big corporations which also undermines a job you get is one you deserve.

I just showed you several examples of companies exploiting people. How else do you explain thousands of companies committing wage theft? EVEN if you believe that a worker can leave… the reason they left was exploitation.

You’re just classist and unwilling to admit it. You’re saying lower class jobs don’t deserve UI. You literally said if they deserved UI they’d get better, higher paying jobs. Not they would be better at their job. But that they would have a better job. NOTHING to do with the merit of a worker only the ability to get a certain job.

A list of things you can’t seem to admit…

-Corporations exploit workers -Workers have very little power against corporations -We don’t have a free market economy -Deservedness is about the individual not a company

The fact that thousands of companies were cited for taking MILLIONS from workers and you’re still blaming the worker, is really astounding. Companies are fallible.

How are we saying the same thing but not in agreement? Yes your job determines your class. So when you say those of certain jobs (aka lower class jobs) deserve less, it’s classist.

The UN has already decided basic human rights.

Just society is fixing the system to offer equal access to both tools and opportunities.

I just don’t understand your line. If the government requires it, you don’t deserve it. If the company requires it, you deserve it? Nonsensical. By definition deserve is about merit. So if in your example someone works at company A and is a terrible worker and fired due to performance issues but receives UI, they deserve it bc their company offers it. But if a person is a great worker and fired due to downsizing or relocation nothing to do with their performance, they don’t deserve UI bc their company doesn’t offer it?!?!

If you were right and we had a free market then the several articles I sent about corporations forcing/exploiting workers wouldn’t occur. Because workers would leave. “In 2019 alone, the agency cited about 8,500 employers for taking about $287 million from workers.” If that many employers are involved the problem is rampant so just finding a new job isn’t that simple. That’s just the employers that were cited not the ones that were perpetuating. Also like I showed before. Those companies eliminate competition and other jobs so there’s nowhere else to go. “Find other employment” is not how it works for the working poor. They have little options and no resources.

It’s analogous to what generation you’re in. Your birth year dictates the generation you’re in but you have to be born first. Without being born you don’t have a generation because it’s one and the same. If I told you I’m white collar. That tells you my class and my job because it’s the same thing.

I don’t think you can ever deserve money. And I think we all deserve basic human rights. Beyond that deserve is a fluffy term that is manipulated by the eye of the beholder. No one deserves anything. Do people deserve to be homeless? No. Do teachers deserve to make less bc their job doesn’t directly generate revenue? No. Do I deserve ten thousands in bonuses bc I work in finance? No. But am I sure that some people believe homeless people deserve it, yes. It’s an incredibly subjective term and should not be used to determine policy or law.

I think law and policy should be evidence based and strive to enable a just society.

You’re deservedness definition seems to center around what is required which makes no sense. Even if a company opted in or out of UI, that does not mean that every employee now deserves UI. Only that the requirement is from the company not from the government.

Companies are run by people and people are different. And organizational culture impacts everything. Why do some companies commit fraud and others don’t? The same reason why some pay more and some don’t. Why do some companies use child labor overseas and others don’t?

Ummm have you not read the news?Amazon warehouses force people to pee in bottles. Corporations force people to do lots of things. Either by threatening their job or docking their pay or giving them a poor review. Walmart locked in janitors. companies commit wage theft by forcing workers to work off the clock