Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:
@ ScootyPuff: That makes sense. Hard work, whether skilled or not, ought to be rewarded decently. What current unskilled laborers get (at least I get the impression that that's the way of things in the US) amounts to nothing more than slave labor in all but name.

And while I do agree that unskilled labor shouldn't rate the same pay as someone who's worked hard to get up in the world (whether through sweat or brains makes no difference), that's no reason to treat and pay them like dirt, either. There should be an acceptable middle ground somewhere.

Stop being reasonable! This is the INTERNET!

I think what the disconect is for most people is that they feel low earning jobs are "easy" by default, which is asinine. In a lot of ways, being a mechanical helper is harder than being a journeyman mechanic. All things considered, they make a pretty fair wage, but it is significantly than even an apprentice (a first year apprentice makes $17.21 in the pocket + full benefits).

I'm a big believer in a fair days work for a fair days pay, no matter what the job is.

Agreed. There is nobility in doing a job well regardless of what it is and everyone is deserving of fair pay for a days work. Employers, unions and workers in general can negotiate whatever wages the market will bear. I hav e respect for everybody that works hard and acts professional regardless of their job.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:
@ ScootyPuff: That makes sense. Hard work, whether skilled or not, ought to be rewarded decently. What current unskilled laborers get (at least I get the impression that that's the way of things in the US) amounts to nothing more than slave labor in all but name.

And while I do agree that unskilled labor shouldn't rate the same pay as someone who's worked hard to get up in the world (whether through sweat or brains makes no difference), that's no reason to treat and pay them like dirt, either. There should be an acceptable middle ground somewhere.

Are you seriously comparing people willingly entering into a contract for paid labor to slavery?

Are you seriously denying that wage slaves exist?

Bran Dawri wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:
@ ScootyPuff: That makes sense. Hard work, whether skilled or not, ought to be rewarded decently. What current unskilled laborers get (at least I get the impression that that's the way of things in the US) amounts to nothing more than slave labor in all but name.

And while I do agree that unskilled labor shouldn't rate the same pay as someone who's worked hard to get up in the world (whether through sweat or brains makes no difference), that's no reason to treat and pay them like dirt, either. There should be an acceptable middle ground somewhere.

Are you seriously comparing people willingly entering into a contract for paid labor to slavery?

Are you seriously denying that wage slaves exist?

I'm seriously arguing that it's wrong to call people that get paid for their labor slaves yes. I'm also seriously arguing that people that willingly choose to enter into a labor contract wherein they are paid for their labor slaves. I'm also seriously call the term "wage slave" an oxymoron.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:
@ ScootyPuff: That makes sense. Hard work, whether skilled or not, ought to be rewarded decently. What current unskilled laborers get (at least I get the impression that that's the way of things in the US) amounts to nothing more than slave labor in all but name.

And while I do agree that unskilled labor shouldn't rate the same pay as someone who's worked hard to get up in the world (whether through sweat or brains makes no difference), that's no reason to treat and pay them like dirt, either. There should be an acceptable middle ground somewhere.

Are you seriously comparing people willingly entering into a contract for paid labor to slavery?

Are you seriously denying that wage slaves exist?

I'm seriously arguing that it's wrong to call people that get paid for their labor slaves yes. I'm also seriously arguing that people that willingly choose to enter into a labor contract wherein they are paid for their labor slaves. I'm also seriously call the term "wage slave" an oxymoron.

It's very possible. It's not chains of iron that bind them, but economic chains. They may make barley make enough to survive, but can't leave the job because there is nothing else.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:
@ ScootyPuff: That makes sense. Hard work, whether skilled or not, ought to be rewarded decently. What current unskilled laborers get (at least I get the impression that that's the way of things in the US) amounts to nothing more than slave labor in all but name.

And while I do agree that unskilled labor shouldn't rate the same pay as someone who's worked hard to get up in the world (whether through sweat or brains makes no difference), that's no reason to treat and pay them like dirt, either. There should be an acceptable middle ground somewhere.

Are you seriously comparing people willingly entering into a contract for paid labor to slavery?

Are you seriously denying that wage slaves exist?

I'm seriously arguing that it's wrong to call people that get paid for their labor slaves yes. I'm also seriously arguing that people that willingly choose to enter into a labor contract wherein they are paid for their labor slaves. I'm also seriously call the term "wage slave" an oxymoron.

It's very possible. It's not chains of iron that bind them, but economic chains. They may make barley make enough to survive, but can't leave the job because there is nothing else.

So free people who are entitled to all the rights and protections of US citizens, who are gainfully employed but earn less than X amount of dollars annually are in the same situation as slaves with no rights who are treated as livestock? Do companies get to sell their minimum wage employees to other companies against the will of the employee? Do companies get to beat and abuse their minimum wage employees? Do companies get to claim ownership of the children of their minimum wage employees? Do minimum wage employees not count as US citizens? Are minimum wage employees banned by law from having any private property rights? If a minimum wage employee takes a job with another company does their new employee have a legal responsibility to send the employee back to the previous employer? Please tell me how both situations are the same.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:
@ ScootyPuff: That makes sense. Hard work, whether skilled or not, ought to be rewarded decently. What current unskilled laborers get (at least I get the impression that that's the way of things in the US) amounts to nothing more than slave labor in all but name.

And while I do agree that unskilled labor shouldn't rate the same pay as someone who's worked hard to get up in the world (whether through sweat or brains makes no difference), that's no reason to treat and pay them like dirt, either. There should be an acceptable middle ground somewhere.

Are you seriously comparing people willingly entering into a contract for paid labor to slavery?

Are you seriously denying that wage slaves exist?

I'm seriously arguing that it's wrong to call people that get paid for their labor slaves yes. I'm also seriously arguing that people that willingly choose to enter into a labor contract wherein they are paid for their labor slaves. I'm also seriously call the term "wage slave" an oxymoron.

It's very possible. It's not chains of iron that bind them, but economic chains. They may make barley make enough to survive, but can't leave the job because there is nothing else.

So free people who are entitled to all the rights and protections of US citizens, who are gainfully employed but earn less than X amount of dollars annually are in the same situation as slaves with no rights who are treated as livestock? Do companies get to sell their minimum wage employees to other companies against the will of the employee? Do companies get to beat and abuse their minimum wage employees? Do companies get to claim ownership of the children of their minimum wage employees? Do minimum wage employees not count as US citizens? Are minimum wage employees banned by law from having any private property rights? If a minimum wage employee takes a job with another company does their new employee have a legal responsibility to send the employee back to the previous employer? Please tell me how both situations are the same.

It's not actual slavery. You are taking the expression way too literally.

There is only one way to take it.

Slavery is a serious thing. Don't trivialize it by using it as a false description.

It's called slavery in the sense that they are slaves to their job. It's not trivializing anything.

No, they are treated worse than some slaves historically.

I'm (obviously) not talking about black people in Viriginia pre-Civil War here, but slaves in ancient Rome and Greece were treated far better, and often even respected than someone working at McD's. Most importantly they were even paid wages sometimes and could save up to buy their own freedom. They actually had some way to get ahead, to get out of the situation they found themselves in. That's more than a wage slave of Walmart's or McD's can say.
This was 2000 years ago in a culture which by many of today's standards was barbaric.

No, they're really not.

You are trivializing a harsh reality that many people live in even today. Just stop.

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, they're really not.

You are trivializing a harsh reality that many people live in even today. Just stop.

It's really not. It's just like complaining that something is "like prison" or that you feel "like prisoners" or indeed,
"like slaves."

Yeah, that's pretty fething ignorant.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, they're really not.

You are trivializing a harsh reality that many people live in even today. Just stop.

It's really not. It's just like complaining that something is "like prison" or that you feel "like prisoners" or indeed,
"like slaves."

Dude, just stop.

Those things aren't anything close to equivalent. Slavery is a dehumanizing process whereby a person is reduced to the level of property, a thing.

Prison or a bad employment situations do NOT compare.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, they're really not.

You are trivializing a harsh reality that many people live in even today. Just stop.

It's really not. It's just like complaining that something is "like prison" or that you feel "like prisoners" or indeed,
"like slaves."

Dude, just stop.

Those things aren't anything close to equivalent. Slavery is a dehumanizing process whereby a person is reduced to the level of property, a thing.

Prison or a bad employment situations do NOT compare.

The problem is, as it's been discussed in this thread, there are certain employers who pay such a ridiculous low wage that people working those jobs literally have 2 options: work at that job, or live under a bridge. Either option, they're on government "assistance". So in many ways, yes, they are slaves to that job.

You are wrong. Slaves don't even have a choice between two bad options. Thats what makes them slaves and why the comparison is wrong.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, they're really not.

You are trivializing a harsh reality that many people live in even today. Just stop.

It's really not. It's just like complaining that something is "like prison" or that you feel "like prisoners" or indeed,
"like slaves."

Dude, just stop.

Those things aren't anything close to equivalent. Slavery is a dehumanizing process whereby a person is reduced to the level of property, a thing.

Prison or a bad employment situations do NOT compare.

It's comparison not equivalence. How do you not understand that?

Both are equally appalling.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Both are equally appalling.

We do agree on that one. It's absolutely despicable that a company like Walmart can pay its employees such crap wages that they (walmart employees) account for roughly 4 Billion Dollars of Welfare assistance in the US.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Both are equally appalling.

We do agree on that one. It's absolutely despicable that a company like Walmart can pay its employees such crap wages that they (walmart employees) account for roughly 4 Billion Dollars of Welfare assistance in the US.

And, going back to the idea of a $20 burger - right now we have $20 burgers, but the people eating the burgers are paying $4 and the US taxpayer is paying the other $16 in food stamps, housing assistance, welfare to the people making them.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Minimum wage jobs pay minimum wage because they are pulling applicants from the broadest labor pool which is unskilled workers.

People still present arguments like this? Srsly?

As we speak, I'm making $16.50/hour to sit on my ass in this lobby, wearing a suit and beating people up on Dakka Dakka. The janitor who I periodically see coming and going through the lobby busts his ass 8 hours a day cleaning a 34 story office building- he makes $9/hour. Most of the time, the only variable that influences how much a company pays its workers is the extent to which an employer can exploit his employees.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Minimum wage jobs pay minimum wage because they are pulling applicants from the broadest labor pool which is unskilled workers.

People still present arguments like this? Srsly?

As we speak, I'm making $16.50/hour to sit on my ass in this lobby, wearing a suit and beating people up on Dakka Dakka. The janitor who I periodically see coming and going through the lobby busts his ass 8 hours a day cleaning a 34 story office building- he makes $9/hour. Most of the time, the only variable that influences how much a company pays its workers is the extent to which an employer can exploit his employees.

Does the minimum wage really have to be a living wage? Now, I agree that full-time employees ought to be able to make enough to live off of. But what about the multitude of high schoolers and college students who are looking for part time work? Some jobs lend themselves well to part-time, supplemental income, and even among those, many of them already pay higher than minimum wage (including many restaurants and retail establishments). Even so, the last time my home state saw a significant minimum wage increase, I saw a number of minimum wage jobs disappear. I always thought of minimum wage jobs to be primarily geared towards part-time, entry level work. Will there still be a place for that if we require the minimum wage to be a living wage? I can't imagine many business would hire high school students for that much, and if they are required to pay that much I'd guess a lot of older adults would be more likely to apply for minimum wage jobs anyway.

I'm not sure how exactly your post ties into mine. I didn't mention anything about a living wage (and $15/hour is not a living wage in San Francisco).

Bran Dawri wrote:
No, they are treated worse than some slaves historically.

I'm (obviously) not talking about black people in Viriginia pre-Civil War here, but slaves in ancient Rome and Greece were treated far better, and often even respected than someone working at McD's. Most importantly they were even paid wages sometimes and could save up to buy their own freedom. They actually had some way to get ahead, to get out of the situation they found themselves in. That's more than a wage slave of Walmart's or McD's can say.
This was 2000 years ago in a culture which by many of today's standards was barbaric.

Wait what? I must have missed where McDonalds routinely killed employees who didn't work properly, or perhaps threw them in match pairs in front of the serving counter for the amusement of patrons. Dude read a book.

On the other hand, gladitorial games while eating sausage biscuits might get me to go to one.

I'm pretty sure he is not talking about gladiators, but household slaves.

It's almost as if people don't know what a metaphor is ITT.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
It's almost as if people don't know what a metaphor is ITT.

Its almost as people don't understand that comparing a horrible, dehumanizing condition that reduces actual human beings to property with people that just make less money from their otherwise comfortable jobs, just mocks and belittles the actual suffering that the first ones had (and continue to have since there are still honest to god slaves in some parts of the planet).

PhantomViper wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
It's almost as if people don't know what a metaphor is ITT.

Its almost as people don't understand that comparing a horrible, dehumanizing condition that reduces actual human beings to property with people that just make less money from their otherwise comfortable jobs, just mocks and belittles the actual suffering that the first ones had (and continue to have since there are still honest to god slaves in some parts of the planet).

You just don't get it don't you. The point of the comparison is to show how it is a bad thing. Read up a little.

Also, for anybody confused about exactly what it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery

The point is that many of us think it's a horrible and inappropriate comparison.

We understand plenty what metaphors are.

Bran Dawri wrote:
No, they are treated worse than some slaves historically.

I'm (obviously) not talking about black people in Viriginia pre-Civil War here, but slaves in ancient Rome and Greece were treated far better, and often even respected than someone working at McD's. Most importantly they were even paid wages sometimes and could save up to buy their own freedom. They actually had some way to get ahead, to get out of the situation they found themselves in. That's more than a wage slave of Walmart's or McD's can say.
This was 2000 years ago in a culture which by many of today's standards was barbaric.

This is absurd. People at Walmart or McDonald's don't have to "buy their freedom" because they're already free to pursue alternate routes of income.

MI's minimum wage is $8.15 / hr. Assuming you work 40 hours a week, and take off two weeks a year, that's $16,300 / year. It's not all that great, but you aren't exactly starving either. And that's assuming you work on 40 hours per week without pursuing any overtime.

I'm a little short on sympathy for these "woe is me" arguments. I'm an ABD PhD student paid a (rather small) stipend. In addition to my doctoral research, I (1) teach 2 undergraduate classes. Not TA. TEACH. I design the syllabus, select the text book, lecture, assign homework, grade, and give exams. (2) Work remotely for an applied research company up to 40 hours per week, though the time investment varies wildy. And (3) am a part-time consultant and freelance programmer.

If I was depending on one source of income to get me by, just saying "I'll put in my 40 hours per week!" I'd be broke as a joke. Maybe it's time for Goofy Mcburgerflipper to get off his ass and get a second job. If all he has are minimum wage skills, then he should work harder if he wants more than minimum wage pay. Here's an idea - take a part time apprenticeship on the weekends learning a trade - he's only working 40 hours per week remember? That leaves a ton of free time. Learn for free by helping out a building contractor, then when you learn enough to do it yourself, look for work as a more skilled laborer. That all sounds like a lot of effort though...it's a lot easier just to bitch about the minimum wage.

Nuggz... that's some bootstrap'n there.