How much you make should be dependent on how much effort your job involves and how much impact it has on others.
In a fair society, a dog walker shouldn’t be getting paid the same amount as someone who’s doing a more tedious or impactful job such as a construction worker.
On the other hand, if you increase the amount of salary a person who’s doing the least amount of task get, then in return you’ll have to increase the salary of every other individual too, which will in return again increase the cost of living.
It only increases the cost of living in an unregulated market where shops and landlords are able to charge more for no other reason than the fact that they can. If we fight for fair pricing of goods and housing the same way we fight for fair pay, then we can keep them in balance as well.
Enough collective effort is already being put forward to keep everyone - in the US at least - fed, clothed, and housed; it’s only the uneven distribution of the goods and pay that prevents that effort from raising the quality of life of the lower classes.
We can force these things to be regulated, even under capitalism; the intended way of doing it - even when the US was founded - has always been to protest and disrupt the status quo until those on power are forced to meet your demands.
The amount a certain job pays should depent on anything but the effort it takes. Otherwise it would incentivise to never innovate and improve methods.
Why should one invent a weaving machine if doing it by hand is so much more difficult and would pay so much more?
Why should we invent the printing press if spending days copying a book by hand is so much more effort and pays better?
Why do we need cranes if carrying bricks up the hill requiers more work and therefore pays better?
We would basicaly still be in the stone age.
The way it works in our reality is, jobs that a lot of people are willing to do and that require the least amount of training pay little, jobs that only a few are able to do and require a lot of training or eduction pay more.
On top of that, its also a matter of responsibility and liability. If you miss a spot during cleanup as a maid, its no biggie. If you hit an artery during operation as a doctor its life or dead.
And on top of that its partially the employers financial risk and reward in taking you on. A cashier is trained easily and is highly replacable. Their work will generate value for the employer basically on the same day that they start but it’s very limited. If they screw up, they can be let go without further thought about replacement. An engineer will on average start generating profits after roughly 2 years of employment, but those potential profits are a lot higher. This means that the employer has to keep the engineer incetivised to stay with a higher initial salary, to not lose their investment.
As an extra, specialized jobs that require little education but only a few people are willing to do can pay more than they usually would. Nightshifts, working on ships or drill rigs, etc.
Which is why I said “effort” and the “impact it has on others”. I obviously meant when you’re doing a job in the most efficient way possible. Do you think I am saying that I should be paid more if I keep repeating the same task 10 times in order to show that I put more effort in it? My whole argument was comparing two different segments of work, not the same segment working differently.
And way it works in our reality is more or less justified to me. Specialized high skill job should be paying more than low skill jobs. Jobs that have you investing an asset into them should have more return than low skill jobs. It’s just how life is.
How much you make should be dependent on how much effort your job involves and how much impact it has on others.
In a fair society, a dog walker shouldn’t be getting paid the same amount as someone who’s doing a more tedious or impactful job such as a construction worker.
On the other hand, if you increase the amount of salary a person who’s doing the least amount of task get, then in return you’ll have to increase the salary of every other individual too, which will in return again increase the cost of living.
It only increases the cost of living in an unregulated market where shops and landlords are able to charge more for no other reason than the fact that they can. If we fight for fair pricing of goods and housing the same way we fight for fair pay, then we can keep them in balance as well.
Enough collective effort is already being put forward to keep everyone - in the US at least - fed, clothed, and housed; it’s only the uneven distribution of the goods and pay that prevents that effort from raising the quality of life of the lower classes.
We can force these things to be regulated, even under capitalism; the intended way of doing it - even when the US was founded - has always been to protest and disrupt the status quo until those on power are forced to meet your demands.
The amount a certain job pays should depent on anything but the effort it takes. Otherwise it would incentivise to never innovate and improve methods.
Why should one invent a weaving machine if doing it by hand is so much more difficult and would pay so much more?
Why should we invent the printing press if spending days copying a book by hand is so much more effort and pays better?
Why do we need cranes if carrying bricks up the hill requiers more work and therefore pays better?
We would basicaly still be in the stone age.
The way it works in our reality is, jobs that a lot of people are willing to do and that require the least amount of training pay little, jobs that only a few are able to do and require a lot of training or eduction pay more.
On top of that, its also a matter of responsibility and liability. If you miss a spot during cleanup as a maid, its no biggie. If you hit an artery during operation as a doctor its life or dead.
And on top of that its partially the employers financial risk and reward in taking you on. A cashier is trained easily and is highly replacable. Their work will generate value for the employer basically on the same day that they start but it’s very limited. If they screw up, they can be let go without further thought about replacement. An engineer will on average start generating profits after roughly 2 years of employment, but those potential profits are a lot higher. This means that the employer has to keep the engineer incetivised to stay with a higher initial salary, to not lose their investment.
As an extra, specialized jobs that require little education but only a few people are willing to do can pay more than they usually would. Nightshifts, working on ships or drill rigs, etc.
Which is why I said “effort” and the “impact it has on others”. I obviously meant when you’re doing a job in the most efficient way possible. Do you think I am saying that I should be paid more if I keep repeating the same task 10 times in order to show that I put more effort in it? My whole argument was comparing two different segments of work, not the same segment working differently. And way it works in our reality is more or less justified to me. Specialized high skill job should be paying more than low skill jobs. Jobs that have you investing an asset into them should have more return than low skill jobs. It’s just how life is.