TIME IS MONEY
When individuals engage in employment, it's not merely an exchange of labor for a paycheck; it's also the exchange of their most precious resource: time.
Every hour spent working is an hour not available for other pursuits. This aspect is crucial to consider since time is irreplaceable, regardless of the compensation received.
Employers must acknowledge that they aren't just requesting energy from their employees; they are asking them to dedicate a significant portion of their lives.
A LIFE WASTED IS A LIFE CUT SHORT
This perspective underscores my anti-work stance and my practice of “quiet quitting.” It's my firm belief that if someone is required to be somewhere, even if they're not actively engaged in productive tasks, they should be compensated for their time.
Many young individuals are taken advantage of, often lacking a profound understanding of life's brevity. Suddenly, a decade can slip away, all in service of someone else's goals. Shouldn't individuals receive proper compensation for these years? Is it fair that they are only paid enough to scrape by? The sense of entitlement displayed by employers in this regard is astounding.
Employers shouldn't feel entitled to run a successful company if its success hinges on employees essentially sacrificing their lives.
FREEDOM IS FREEDOM TO SPEND YOUR TIME HOW YOU WANT
One significant distinction between our society and historical practices like slavery or imprisonment is our possession of free time. However, the less we can do with that free time, the closer our situation resembles that of slaves or prisoners.
WAGES DO NOT MEASURE WORTH
Wages are not an indicator of an individual's worth; rather, they measure the ease with which one's labor can be exploited. The wage one accepts reflects their bargaining power in the labor market. Just as water's value increases dramatically for someone dying of thirst but decreases for someone already well-hydrated, so does labor's value fluctuate based on one's circumstances.
$100 TO YOU =/= $100 TO YOUR BOSS
This disparity exists because employers often perceive their time as more valuable than their employees. They compensate their workers for tasks to free up their own time for personal pursuits.
YOU RISK MORE EVERY DAY THAN YOUR BOSS OR THEIR INVESTORS
Employees bear substantial risk. If a company goes under, employees lose their livelihoods and often lose control of their lives until they secure another job. In contrast, even if a boss's company fails, they still possess the wealth they've accumulated.
COMMON JOBS ARE COMMON BECAUSE THEY'RE THE MOST NEEDED
Modern society falsely claims that wages correlate with an individual's value to the company. Minimum wage workers are paid less due to their perceived replaceability, which is a product of systemic poverty, not their actual contribution to society. COVID-19 has demonstrated the essential nature of minimum wage workers.
Common criticisms of the points I've made and my response:
Market Forces and Value: Critics might argue that wages are determined by market forces and the value an individual brings to a company. They might contend that individuals with specialized skills or in-demand talents should be compensated more.
Counter: While market forces certainly play a role in wage determination, the argument here is about the inherent value of an individual's time and the acknowledgment that all labor, regardless of its nature, involves the exchange of an individual's irreplaceable time. It's about questioning whether market forces always accurately reflect an individual's worth, especially for roles that society heavily relies on but undervalues, like certain essential service jobs.
Efficiency and Productivity: Critics could argue that paying employees less for their time allows for greater business efficiency and cost control. They might say that it incentivizes productivity.
Counter: Efficiency and cost control are important, but it's essential to ensure fair compensation for the time spent. The argument isn't against efficiency but rather against exploiting labor. Fair wages can still align with productivity incentives, promoting a healthier and more motivated workforce.
Risk and Entrepreneurship: Critics might point out that entrepreneurs and business owners take substantial financial risks to start and run companies, and their rewards are a reflection of that risk.
Counter: Acknowledging the risks taken by entrepreneurs is valid. However, the argument emphasizes that employees also bear substantial risks when a company fails, as they lose their livelihoods and financial stability. It's about questioning the distribution of risk and reward within the employment relationship.
Skills and Education: Critics may argue that wage disparities exist because higher-paying jobs often require more education, training, or specialized skills.
Counter: This argument doesn't negate the importance of skills or education. It asserts that even jobs requiring fewer formal skills or education have intrinsic value and should provide a living wage. It's about recognizing that many low-paying jobs require specific skills and qualities that are often undervalued.
Economic Realities: Critics might contend that some businesses can't afford to pay higher wages without adverse consequences, such as job loss or increased prices for consumers.
Counter: This argument doesn't advocate for unfeasible wage increases for all businesses but suggests that societal values should prioritize fair compensation, and economic policies should address these concerns. Some critics might argue against government intervention in wages, while proponents may advocate for policies like minimum wage adjustments or incentives for businesses to provide fair wages.