Hacker News Reader

Comment by prolikewh0a | Hacker News Reader

>It's about who takes on the initial burden of risk and what kind of compensation that risk demands. A worker takes on little to no risk when offering his/her labour in return for a steady salary.

Who takes more risk, the worker standing 70 stories up on an I-beam with no health insurance or life insurance (couldn't afford it!), or the guy who borrowed money to start a business? Who creates the profit that allows the owner to pay back that loan? Who dug the metal out of the ground? Oh, right, it all comes back to the worker. Workers risk their lives and livelihood. The worker takes on just as much risk, if not more, especially with 80% of our country living paycheck to paycheck.

Let me know how you start a business on $7.25/hr?

View on HN

> the worker standing 70 stories up on an I-beam with no health insurance or life insurance

Hyperbole aside, I'm pretty sure this is illegal and no worker should ever be allowed onto a job site without insurance.

> Who creates the profit that allows the owner to pay back that loan? Who dug the metal out of the ground?

If digging the metal out of the ground commanded an executive's or major stakeholder's compensation, the market would compensate them. The fact, right or wrong, is that the barrier of entry for menial labour does not command a high salary. Almost anyone can do it. Can the same be said about directing a multinational organization?

> Workers risk their lives and livelihood. The worker takes on just as much risk, if not more, especially with 80% of our country living paycheck to paycheck.

I would hazard that the vast majority of occupations (in the US) do not involve workers risking their lives and livelihoods.

> Let me know how you start a business on $7.25/hr?

Wozniak sold his HP calculator for $500 and Jobs sold his Volkswagen for $1500. No one said it would be easy, but plenty of people started with less.

> The fact, right or wrong, is that the barrier of entry for menial labour does not command a high salary.

This is merely a description of the current state of affairs. It is not relevant in a debate about the desired state of affairs.

Really?

What kind of answer do you expect? "No I do not mean what I say, I'm just a markov chain."?

  Hyperbole aside, I'm pretty sure this is illegal and no worker should ever be allowed onto a job site without insurance.

only because of the agitation of workers to assert the value of their labor. which is the same concept we are all talking about here.

> Who takes more risk, the worker standing 70 stories up on an I-beam with no health insurance or life insurance (couldn't afford it!), or the guy who borrowed money to start a business?

In the capitalist value system, the latter: he might lose (temporarily, at least) his credit rating and ability to acquire capital if the venture fails; all the other guy is going to lose is the life of a worker, and who cares about that?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com