107
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2023
107 points (91.5% liked)
Asklemmy
43989 readers
710 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
That's what I'm asking you, my fellow Lemmy :)
The answer is they don't compensate them, because that would be silly.
Why? Bob has higher costs and longer preparation time for work.
In economic theory, the job is worth less to Bob, and he should be compensated more for taking it.
Is it fair that Bob should subsidise the company's labor costs?
Bob's labor also incurs greater costs on the communal infrastructure (roads, pollution, gas, etc), why should the company not also have a higher burden (higher tax) to compensate the commons for that?
Because the simplest option for the company is not to hire Bob.
Bob chose to live and work where he does, he can live with the consequences of his choices.
I don't feel sorry for bob.
Bob lives where they do because that's what they can afford that will fulfill their needs. If you want them to work for you, make an attractive offer. Compensating for a commute is one way to do that.
But the question is not what is simplest for the company. Arguably it would be even simpler for the company not to pay Bob, or anyone for that matter, they could also simplify a lot with not bothering with doing anything beside extracting money from people, slavery and robbery are very simple.
If we change the viewpoint from people living to serve companies, we might arrive at different conclusions, and maybe even a society better suited for humans, rather than companies.
I already answered. This is idiotic. No one does this.