• MxM111@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nothing wrong in making money for someone else, IF you get yourself decent salary and have interesting work.

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I dunno, working in construction contracting has taught me that time in man hours is the ultimate pricing value point, that everything can be boiled down to. Someone who gives up their time should reap the most benefits. Someone who owns a business and pays others to work should be heavily taxed.

      Earning a bit more does help make it more palatable, but it still isn’t fair.

        • TWeaK@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          A common saying is that a fair deal is one that neither party feels happy with, because neither one is taking advantage of the other.

            • TWeaK@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think employees generally get such a raw deal that a fair deal would be refreshing and positive. However when you look at massively overpriced roles, eg consultants, they’d probably say it wasn’t fair to give them a fair deal.

              • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I generally agree. However, I was curious whether you had any thoughts related more directly to one of the earlier comments, concerning how fairness, within the context of employment, might be evaluated.

          • MxM111@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Which is what happens when a person is hired? Both parties are happy with the agreement, otherwise they wouldn’t accept, right?

            • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.netOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Most people do not have the luxury of turning down a job offer, as the alternative is hunger and homelessness, which the employer uses as leverage to underpay their employee.

              If housing and basic food staples were a human right (free) only then would you see fair wages in the open market, as people would have the option to turn down unfair jobs, forcing the employer to make them fair or hire no one.

                • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Based on your own thinking, what would you understand as the attributes of a relationship or agreement that may be considered fair?

                  • MxM111@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I think the standard way of salary negotiations (labour supply and demand) is the only way to define fair salary. If this salary is not sufficient to make decent living, and if we want to correct for that, then it should be corrected by other means, such as UBI, out of compassion or other reasons, but not for fairness reasons.

                • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.netOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Well, for one; Wages keeping up with inflation and productivity would go a long way to being more fair.

                  But I’m curious why you’re asking me what is fair, I already laid that out in my second paragraph in my previous comment. As I said, if the absolute basics to living were freely available, people would be free to reject unfair offers, and thus, in a theoretical ‘free market’ wages and benefits would increase to a truly fair and equal level.

                  • MxM111@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    So, your statement is that it is fair to guarantee the basic of living regardless of the person works or not. How do you respond to criticism that it is not fair to forcefully take money via taxes and spend them setting up standard of living for someone else?

            • Cruxifux@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes, everyone loves their job and is happy with their pay for their job. You solved it bud, great work.

    • MyNameIsIgglePiggle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You make money for someone else in exchange for the safety of a consistent paycheck. Its like the old feudal system, in theory you are being protected in exchange for your labour.

      Of course in practise you are at the mercy of the company, and in the feudal system the protection you were afforded meant you needed to pay for your own armour and fight to the death to protect your owner.

    • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Eh, I’d argue that can make it more palatable, but honestly I do think, at least in most cases (I can think of outliers), it’s generally pretty exploitative to profit off of someone else’s labor that they themselves are not actually wanting to do themselves, especially if the threat of homelessness and hunger is the prime motivator for the person doing the work. Like, it’s not really fair in the grand scheme of things.

      A simple way to fix that I guess would be if every company was a co-op. Since then everyone is profiting equally, and no one’s labor is being exploited for the exclusive benefit of another.

    • Scrof@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If you’re one of the lucky few sure. But then you’re kinda part of the problem. The vast, overwhelming majority of people on the planet work jobs they don’t really like just to keep a roof above their heads.

      • MxM111@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s the issue, not if someone else makes profit or not. If nobody makes profit from your work, but you still work job you really do not like just to keep roof above your head, then what’s the difference?

        • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why would someone need to work a degrading job simply to remain housed, other than because such impositions support the profit motive for landlords, lenders, and employers?

          • MxM111@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why do you think it is because of that? Do you think the temp agriculture jobs, for example, would suddenly become having huge payments if farmers, who hires temp workers, have no profit? Please consider that farming is subsidized in US, because it is difficult to make profits there. Or do you think that cleaners who work in non-profit organizations have huge salaries and interesting job?

            • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I doubt there could be much meaning found in the possibility that corporate farms “suddenly” would have no profits.

              Corporate farms are structured around the profit motive, which is supported by the claim they assert for exclusive control over certain plots of the land, and for exclusive ownership of the products from using such land. For farm workers not to be exploited, they must stop upholding respect for such claims. Plainly, their lives would be vastly better in consequence, as the full value of their products would be distributed among themselves, with no share being taken from them by anyone else simply from a claim to private ownership.