-17

I've definitely shared this concept or observation or whatever you want to call it before, but recent events have made me think of it again. I should clarify first that what I base this train of thought on isn't entirely something that clicks for me, something I might not get into expressing, but it definitely makes you or at least me wonder why the implications in the train of thought aren't considered, at least outside my occupation (since I'm in an occupation designed to work around the otherwise neglect of the concept), and I thought of running this by.

Back in the old days, it was common for business people to pay their workers more honestly, as in based on what they thought the worker seemed to deserve. Often the workers would seem underwhelmed. Organized criminals would then step in and say "you'll get more out of us" and so that part of society grew. For some reason, the first thing within the mind of the people in charge, trying to assess everything, was "let's invent this thing, we might call it the minimum wage". Alrighty. So this side thinking, what do we think of it? Something happened, right?

So here is where the train of thought works into the picture. Matters of monetization are just one arena up the sleeve of bad actors. A lot of people feel abruptly socially isolated. When this happens, instinct is often to seek out companions. Social life might be dead or people might be avoidant. Someone I know is in such a situation. Along comes what might be called a bad actor. To them, they might see a potential extension of themselves with freedom of minimal effort. And voila, someone new joins the "bad crowd" or "dysfunctional crowd".

Watching this unfold myself, I think to myself. Places have a "minimum reference point" for the topic of exchange/payment/whatever the word is, so then what does the non-thinking come from to apply this thought to the whole isolation thing mentioned? Anyone here have people they know who were absorbed into a bad part of society when everything seemed dead and thought "well, it's not like anyone else was going to give them what they need"?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 34 points 5 months ago

I read the whole thing multiple times and still have no idea what you're proposing

[-] Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee 6 points 5 months ago

Right there with you. I understood none of it so here's chatGPT's intrepretation of it:

They reminisce about how, historically, business people paid workers based on perceived merit, leading to feelings of underwhelm among workers. This dissatisfaction opened the door for organized criminals who promised better compensation, thus fostering a shadow economy. This historical anecdote sets up a discussion about the introduction of the minimum wage as a regulatory response to such economic exploitation.

The author then draws a parallel between this economic dynamic and social dynamics. Just as bad actors exploited workers' dissatisfaction, they argue that social isolation makes individuals vulnerable to negative influences. When people feel isolated and lack social support, they might be more likely to fall into bad company, similar to how workers turned to criminals for better pay.

The crux of the argument is that just as there is a "minimum wage" to ensure fair economic treatment, there might be a need for a "minimum reference point" in social contexts to prevent isolation and the subsequent vulnerability to bad actors. The author is pondering why society doesn't apply the same proactive thinking to prevent social isolation as it does to prevent economic exploitation.

The concluding thoughts suggest that the author has observed people being drawn into negative social circles due to a lack of alternatives, similar to how workers once turned to criminals. They are calling for a societal reflection on how to provide better social support and prevent people from being lured into detrimental situations due to loneliness or isolation.

Assuming this is correct I kind of understand what OP is saying but I still don't get what they're actually suggesting. Some form of mandatory socialization for isolated people perhaps?

[-] shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I mean that's not inaccurate.

[-] kionite231@lemmy.ca 6 points 5 months ago

As a person whose first language isn't English I didn't understand anything they said

[-] jet@hackertalks.com 7 points 5 months ago

As a native English speaker, I didn't either.

[-] shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago

As a person whose first language isn't English, I did.

~~Though that might be a factor in some things.~~

this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2024
-17 points (24.2% liked)

Casual Conversation

1679 readers
264 users here now

Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.


RULES

Casual conversation communities:

Related discussion-focused communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS