Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Yes, it is dismissive. And I won't apologize for that. Not every task has value. Arbitrarily dictating that doing said task for 40 hours warrants a living wage is nonsensical.
|
The idea is to decree that every task that requires a human to do it *does* have value. It is a deliberate choice intended to give people dignity and have them feel they are contributing to society.
I also hate to repeat myself, but saying an idea is nonsensical because you don't agree with it is not enough. Ok, you don't think every task has value, but "value" is not completely objective, it is also subjective to a very large degree, else people would not spend millions on dabs of paint on canvas or their time and money watching men skate around whacking a rubber disc with sticks. Value can be created by consensus. Change the consensus, change the value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
The back half of your post is on point though. I hate repeating myself, but as I stated, the social safety net should exist for the people you mention who just can't advance. But for the rest, raising the minimum wage is not going to solve the problem of technology making low value jobs obsolete. So while you have identified the problem, I don't believe that the solution offered is actually a solution.
|
Of course one change is not going to solve a huge, complex and evolving problem. I think it has a chance of mitigating the problem, though, and of being a small part of a general solution - there will come a day when this issue of the unskilled and semi-skilled being seen as superfluous to the economy will become critical. Anything done to even slightly lessen the impact of that coming change has to be contemplated.