• Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    40
    ·
    6 months ago

    Not the same thing. An essential worker was somebody doing a job needed for society to continue. That includes both skilled (years of training) jobs and unskilled (a week or two at most before you can do it) jobs.

      • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        No that money needs to go to coke addled morons with degrees in cognitive dissonance who spend their days fucking children and gambling in ways that can crash the global economy. Also ceo’s that make the worst possible decisions.

        • steakmeoutt@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          People who feed you are doing grunt work? People who take your garbage away too? You gave just dismissed two groups of people whose jobs are vital to your wellbeing.

          The problem with your thinking is it’s actually not thinking at all.

          • umbrella
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            to be fair it is grunt work compared to your average office job.

            doesnt make them any less deserving at all of a fair living though.

            • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              Office jobs are the easiest jobs I’ve ever had. The more I make, the less work I actually have to do.

              Weird how the heirarchy works.

              • umbrella
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                i resent this a lot, some of my superiors earned way way more but knew less of how things worked and did a lot less work, so infuriating.

          • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            21
            ·
            6 months ago

            Yes. People who do jobs that take minimal training and who could be replaced in a week are doing grunt work. That’s the difference between skilled and unskilled. Do you need to go through years of training to do your job? Congratulations, you’re not as replaceable as the guy who was trained in 2 days by a high school dropout.

            • The Octonaut@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              20
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              6 months ago

              Cool. So if everyone Learns To Code because that’s the only way to deserve an actual living, who does the essential but unskilled jobs then? Oh I get it, you’re advocating for labour immigration. Cool.

              • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                15
                ·
                6 months ago

                Supply and demand. The supply reduced so wages went up but only as much as demand required. If you want more money be more valuable.

                • Ephera
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Well, we could skip the labor shortage until wages increase by increasing wages right away.

                  We simply don’t have a perfect market, which would be required for supply and demand to regulate without hiccups.

                • The Octonaut@mander.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  So you want labour shortages (and/or strikes because that’s the other way to effect a supply shortage) for a while to hurt the economy before The Market finds a way to pay the people it wants to consume their way to infinite growth

                  What a weirdly planned economy

            • queermunist she/her
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              ·
              6 months ago

              Except “nobody wants to work anymore” i.e. you can’t actually replace them that easily.

              • Asafum@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                6 months ago

                It’s shrodingers labor! All arguments exist until you need one and then the argument becomes what you need most in that moment!

        • umbrella
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          because necessary work deserves the person doing it to survive.

      • Willy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        41
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        rice is essential. should it be more expensive than caviar?

        edit: I misread more as in more than the non-essential.

        • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          6 months ago

          That isn’t the argument. The argument is that they should be paid a living wage, not that they should be paid more than anybody else.

          • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Although, what does a corporate lawyer, wall street gambler, CEO, or congressman really contribute to society? Except stimulating the therapy industry with all the kids they fuck?

            • jkrtn
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              They are negative contributors because they hoard money. Other people actually contribute to the economy by spending money.

              Oh, yeah, and every 10 years the markets crash because they’ve managed to repeal banking regulations or have accumulated too much risk to survive a significant downturn. Then the federal government bails them out?

              • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                I’m against genocide, and believe it should be stopped by any means possible as fast as possible, and the lives of those committing it should not be considered. They don’t necessarily all need to die, but enough of them need to die to stop it, and their lives are beneath consideration. I think ‘hamas’ are dicks who mostly don’t matter. They killed a handful of genocidal monsters, but they treat queer people like shit, so it’s about break-even morally. Doubt we’d get along.

                Why are you bringing shit from other threads in here?

          • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            Uh, there was a whole family by that name on my street growing up. The dad was I think a finance guy. The mom was some ghoulish silicon valley law botherer.