Damn near everyone in America, at least, has access to YouTube or other streaming services. I learned how to program in R from The Teaching Company Plus' (now Wondrium)'s "Learning Statistics: Concepts and Applications in R". 24 lectures. 12 hours of content. Resources available for download. It was the springboard that allowed me to seek out deeper resources and expand my knowledge. Total price, $10.81 for a one month subscription.
You can probably find a lot of equally good free courses at other websites.
My point being this. The information is out there for people willing to seek it out. I came up poor. Really poor. Like, we're having mayonnaise sandwiches tonight for dinner poor. And if you're wondering what's in a mayonnaise sandwich, it's in the name. Mayonnaise. Bread. Period.
Now maybe we need to cultivate a sense of curiosity in our students, so even the ones who end up as warehouse workers at an Amazon can one day aspire to something greater, but at some point, people have to take some responsibility for how their own lives are turning out.
It's really easy to point the finger to society, to the government, to the person next door to you, but at the end of the day, most people have the tools (smartphones, cheap laptops), and they absolutely have the time. But the drive is something that no government program or no private initiative can give them - that you have to pull out of your gut yourself. And if you can't do that, you're doomed to a life of mediocrity.
Choose your hard.
Enough with this pseudo-moralistic perpetuation of abuse, specially the tone-deaf ones based on survivorship bias.
Just because someone is not able to win the lottery that does not mean they have no right to earn a living wage that allows them a honest living.
Aren't we supposed to live in a civilized society? Why are you unwittingly normalizing exploitation and the widespread abuse that bars the majority of families from having a decent life? If not for the parents who can't be self-taught engineers, why not for their children? Are those also expected to endure hardship?
Just pay people a fair wage. Is it that hard?
Yes. Because we have no idea how to define 'fair'. I hear 'fair wage' over and over but no one can ever explain to me what makes the wage 'fair' other than, "I have a job and I should be able to live on that single job!"
Okay... why? Where is it written that you should be able to live on a single job?
As soon as you can come up with an argument that's not emotive, and is instead quantitative, I'll listen.
Right now, all I hear from people parroting this is that, "It's not right!"
> As soon as you can come up with an argument that's not emotive, and is instead quantitative, I'll listen.
I have a feeling that you will not accept any argument based on general morality as you would describe it as 'emotive'.
I think first that humans should not spend the majority of their lives working and sleeping. In other words: surviving. Especially when there are more than enough resources available to achieve this ( in your country).
Second, exploiting other humans (as above) is absolutely wrong.
These two arguments are not emotionally driven.
Well, we do. I mean, we have a pretty solid idea of what represents the absolute bare minimum. For starters, minimum wage should be a living wage. It should be enough all on its own to meet living expenses, including paying for a modest apartment, without breaking any effort rate limit.
Is this too hard?
Are we supposed to pretend that some people simply do not have a right to have a decent life?
> . I hear 'fair wage' over and over but no one can ever explain to me what makes the wage 'fair' other than, "I have a job and I should be able to live on that single job!"
Why exactly do you have a hard time understanding this?
Look at yourself. Look at the living expenses you have, specially the basic necessities. You pay for the roof over your head, for the food on your plate, for the clothes on your back. Do you have a hard time quantifying that?
This is even simpler than that. Landlords and banks already use the concept of effort rate. They already know that if someone's effort rate goes beyond 40% then they are at a significant risk of financial distress. Is it too hard to start from there and determine what's a living wage in any region?
Or is there zero lack of interest, and a desire to pull the ladder out of your own feet to screw everyone less fortunate than you?
Who do you think keeps society and your life functioning while you sit in front of a computer and code?
I served with an Electronics Technician in the Navy who started watching YouTube videos on commercial HVAC and now he does that as a living, servicing mostly restaurants in the Fort Worth-Dallas Metroplex, and not just making a "living", but last year his one-man operation made $300,000.
Not too shabby for just watching YouTube and going to get the necessary certifications.
Do you want to make the best pizza on the planet? There are YouTube videos out there from chefs all over the world, freely giving away their recipes. All you gotta do is pick up the ingredients and get started.
If someone wants it bad enough, they'll go get it, they won't wait for it to be handed to them.
Not everyone wants to be a software developer or something that makes a lot of money and it's a damn bleak view of the world where the grand diversity of the human race is squashed into a profit-chasing monoculture of workers. Just throw away your dreams and install air conditioning. It's the will of the market.
We've gone from the Renaissance ideals of being well rounded and interesting people to being the best single purpose cog in the machine, devoid of any values except making money. What a depressing attitude when we could just focus on treating people fairly and with respect whatever their choices.
Let’s use some data, for example wealth distribution (1) - the lower classes have stayed lower income, and the middle class is rapidly transferring wealth to the upper classes. How is this sustainable?
(1) https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-...
So when people spend so much mental energy complaining about how things aren't "fair", okay, sure, but you could instead just improve your situation. There will always be poor people, but an individual will not always be poor. We are not yet anywhere close to a situation where the highest expected value of an individual's time is to complain (instigating revolt).
This discussion is about minimum wage, wealth gaps, and relative compensation of CEOs. You do realise that? If you think everything is perfect, feel free to ignore such threads. The status quo exists and doesn’t need your support.
Saying that working class people can just work harder and get higher paying jobs, doesn’t solve anyone’s problem. In fact, it only furthers the problem that only some jobs get a living wage, and even fewer jobs get a good wage.
I have no idea why you think it’s okay to tell poor people to “just improve their situation”, and contribute both their/our tax money towards enriching the wealthy.
I was poor. I improved my situation. I didn't spend much time complaining about rich people on the internet, because that would have detracted from the time I taught myself marketable skills for 8 hours a day, every day, for 7 months, while delivering pizzas and living in a shithole with 3 other people. You're right though, complaining would have been much easier, but somehow I don't think I'd still be making a quarter mil if I had taken that route.
"Pathetic" to recommend people work hard and fix their life? That sentiment itself is what's pathetic. The world doesn't owe you shit.
Anyways, your repeated “I got mine, fuck you” mentality is very boring and toxic - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/201....
Good luck, happy that you solved poverty! I’ll stop engaging as this thread will lead nowhere.
Does the CEO provide 700x the value (based on $21.2M / 2000 hrs = $10600 "hourly rate") of a warehouse worker earning $15/hr? They absolutely provide critical input and decisions at the helm of a large ship, but if you break down their input versus the input of everyone under them...is it actually such a huge disparity of mental and physical effort to warrant a 700x difference in pay?
Secondly, if the company wasn't spending that much on CEO compensation, the money could go plenty of places beyond sprinkling pennies at warehouse workers. Infrastructure investment, product development, or other ways to grow the business. Employee wellness programs, crisis/hardship assistance, etc to support the workforce.
Looking at it as only CEO salary divided by employee count is a very limiting perspective that ignores a lot of potential ways that pile of money can be used besides making a very rich person a bit richer.
A political leader is constrained by numerous laws. No, they do not deserve billions of dollars.
CEOs can be replaced by algorithms largely. And society will be all the better once they are. Their job literally is just decision making based on input and output of information.
This assertion is amusing given this ultra-powerful tech firm has been systematically wasting resources to ensure their employees are both worked to death and not paid even a living wage.
The point of that theme is primary to point out that the worker's wages aren't low because of the C-level pay. The worker's wages are low because almost anyone can do their job.