Its About Ethics in Hiring Practices

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Its About Ethics in Hiring Practices

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

KingNastidon posted:

How do creative jobs fit within the framework of equal hours = equal pay? While I disagree that a doctor and janitor should earn the same wage as both people could do janitorial work and only one can perform surgery, I can understand the rationale. Assuming they work in the same facility both contribute to providing healthcare services, either directly or indirectly.

But if I decide to be a full time author or twitch streamer with 0 viewers then what am I producing and how should my wage be determined? Or sidestepping wage, what should my post-tax income be relative to the doctor and janitor?

This is very dumb and backwards. What rationale do you offer that the twitch streamer with 0 viewers should be held in poverty and threatened with starvation? If you've got a good reason that twitch streamers with 0 viewers need to be starved to death I'll listen, but for now we should be leaning towards "Don't starve people".

# ¿ May 28, 2019 04:21

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 10:19

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:

It say a lot about you that "a janitor might be paid more than a twitch streamer" immediately caused you to jump to "THE TWITCH STREAMER WILL STARVE".

Unironically I hope this is true. The existing wage system is that a twitch streamer with no viewers starves to death, if your objection to valuing all labor equally is you are concerned about the wages of twitch streamers with no viewers, you are either saying that you want people to starve or that you are hopelessly ignorant.
edit:
Like at least asking the question of "How do we pay doctors, a necessary component of society?" invites a discussion on whether labor needs to be rewarded to induce it or if we can rely on people's desired industry. The only reason to talk about twitch streamers with no viewers is to have a discussion on whether or not they should be starved to death or not.

twodot fucked around with this message at 04:36 on May 28, 2019

# ¿ May 28, 2019 04:31

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

KingNastidon posted:

This assumes that basic necessities are addressed, eg shelter, food, healthcare, and of course very dope internet speeds.

Will post-tax income including redistribution be completely equal? Or does the equal distribution only apply to people working different jobs within the same organization, such as the doctor/janitor example?

Who cares? If everyone has their needs met and the remaining inequality is access to Brittney Spears' backstage passes or likes on their Facebook account we can stop worrying about inequality.
edit:
I guess to rephrase: What is the scarce resource you are concerned that twitch streamers with no viewers will get too much of?

# ¿ May 28, 2019 04:37

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

KingNastidon posted:

Basic needs are able to be addressed for all because a percentage of the population is participating in labor that provides them.

KingNastidon posted:

This assumes that basic necessities are addressed

You just told me that this conversation was predicated on basic needs being already addressed. Which is it? Also:

twodot posted:

I guess to rephrase: What is the scarce resource you are concerned that twitch streamers with no viewers will get too much of?

Because if the answer is "basic needs" the answer is "We will build systems that make them not scarce".

# ¿ May 28, 2019 05:11

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

KingNastidon posted:

Who is building those systems to not make them scarce? Who is maintaining them once they're built? Production of goods will always require some level of human involvement. Technology is not going to completely eliminate the need for janitors or teachers or therapists or elderly caretakers. Any increase in the number of twitch streamers is making that human labor more scarce and decreasing aggregate production/standard of living.

You are the person who told me the conversation was predicated on basic needs being met:

KingNastidon posted:

This assumes that basic necessities are addressed, eg shelter, food, healthcare, and of course very dope internet speeds.

Pick a position!

# ¿ May 28, 2019 05:42

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

KingNastidon posted:

Assuming no one is forced to participate in labor they aren't interested in doing and everyone is paid equally, as you've advocated for, then how are you ensuring labor is directed towards industries that contribute towards maintaining the material standard of living?

Uh, given that:

KingNastidon posted:

This assumes that basic necessities are addressed, eg shelter, food, healthcare, and of course very dope internet speeds.

There is no such need. If you're imagining a society that doesn't address these things, the question becomes, again, why do you want people to starve? Like the answer to that question can be "It's necessary to starve people to avoid starving more people", but you've gotta say it out loud. (That answer would be wrong in modern society, but it'd be some sort of real argument at least)

# ¿ May 28, 2019 05:53

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

KingNastidon posted:

Because the ability to provide a basic standard of living for all is predicated on a sufficient number of people working in the fields that produce physical goods and provide services associated with creating that basic standard of living. Whatever you desire that standard of living to be will require some amount of labor. If all jobs are treated and paid equally, be it a doctor, janitor, or twitch streamer, then how are you ensuring labor resources are directed appropriately to achieve a minimum standard of living for all?

If your answer is "they won't be paid equally and certain professions will pay more to incentivize people to do them, just with a flatter distribution of income" then fine. But that hasn't been the argument many have made in the past few pages. Is there just a general rejection of the free rider concept and belief people will make individual decisions in regards to their labor that in aggregate will result in an efficiently planned economy?

No that isn't my argument. My argument is: How do you justify threatening individuals with starvation to ensure your policy goals?

# ¿ May 28, 2019 06:36

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

KingNastidon posted:

You create incentives for people to work in industries that meaningfully contribute to the production of goods and services. This could be, say, disparate pay based on profession to create the conditions for starvation prevention rice to be grown and provided to the hungry twitch streamer.

This is a description of a process that leverages starving people for your policy goals. I'm asking for a moral justification to starve humans for your policy goals.

# ¿ May 28, 2019 07:13

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

KingNastidon posted:

My policy goal is to have people not starve. I think that's best accomplished by incentivizing some portion of the population to participate in the production of food that may otherwise be twitch streamers given it's an easier job with fewer responsibilities.

Just say the whole thing out loud, you think it's important to threaten some humans with starvation so that others don't starve, and further that you need actual humans to starve so that your threat has actual teeth.

# ¿ May 28, 2019 07:52

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

KingNastidon posted:

And you want people to use their labor hours to grow your free food while you use your labor hours to play DOTA for an audience of zero while earning the same post-tax income and having the same number of ping pong balls in the lottery for the free La Jolla beach house. Can't let people live on the street, no?

Is this helpful or advancing the discussion in any way? It's a pretty basic question -- how will self-identified creatives be handled even if you're willing to buy the doctor/janitor pay equity argument?

I want to use my labor hours to achieve goals that I think are good, and I'd like other humans to have that same privilege. Now you explain how you think threatening humans with starvation is a moral strategy for your goals.

# ¿ May 28, 2019 08:13

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

V. Illych L. posted:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

What is a specific example of a workforce that shouldn't unionize? Like say "McDonalds" or "Xerox" or some actual business that should not unionize.

# ¿ Jun 3, 2019 07:38

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

V. Illych L. posted:

i have no idea where you're getting 'should' from my position, i'm saying that there are businesses that are difficult to unionise

Why in the gently caress should anyone give a poo poo about this unless it results in unionizing those businesses being bad? If the answer is "unionizing those businesses are difficult, but worthwhile", then we should unionize them regardless of difficulty!
edit:
Also answer the question! Name even one workforce that shouldn't unionize!

twodot fucked around with this message at 07:48 on Jun 3, 2019

# ¿ Jun 3, 2019 07:46

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

V. Illych L. posted:

there is no workforce that *shouldn't* unionise and i again have no idea where you're getting this from, it's a complete red herring

You don't get to pretend you didn't say this:

V. Illych L. posted:

ideally yes, but some concessions must be made to the material difficulty of organising certain sectors or businesses, where lots of businesses have marginal revenues and so unionising will drive places out of business, creating a trap which can only be fairly resolved by imposition from outside

# ¿ Jun 3, 2019 07:53

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

V. Illych L. posted:

<idiocy>

Either labor acting in concert is good, or it is bad. My personal opinion is that it is good. You can either argue for unionizing or against, but you can't argue unionizing is bad in specific areas unless you are able to name them. Name the industries that can't benefit from unions or acknowledge you are a terrible person.
edit:

V. Illych L. posted:

or are you suggesting that unionising is always a positive for the individual worker? that's a strong statement and not one i'm convinced is true (e.g. if you get murdered or sacked for being unionised, that's clearly a net negative)

Yes, and it is 100% why I think you are a bad horrible person. How is that you even need to ask this question?

twodot fucked around with this message at 08:13 on Jun 3, 2019

# ¿ Jun 3, 2019 08:10

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 10:19

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

A big flaming stink posted:

somfin it's really loving obvious you're doing the philosophical debate thing where you try to get your opponent to agree to very specific premises so that you can then knock down that premise.

Even if you're totally correct, getting a person to agree or refute a premise is not some sort of gotcha for the same reason asking what newspapers someone reads isn't. If you agree you can just say yes, if you don't you can just say no. If after you answer the question they do some rhetorical trap card sprung nonsense, that is the time to call them out. Spending pages investigating why a person might ask another person a question instead of answering the drat question seems much more a problem than expecting a plain answer to a direct question.

# ¿ Jun 5, 2019 03:11

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Its About Ethics in Hiring Practices