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 must log in or register to comment.
I read the whole thing multiple times and still have no idea what you’re proposing
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?
I mean that’s not inaccurate.
As a person whose first language isn’t English I didn’t understand anything they said
As a native English speaker, I didn’t either.
As a person whose first language isn’t English, I did.
Though that might be a factor in some things.
Which part is confusing?
Removed by mod
Give the biggest example of a part that confused you.
Removed by mod
Suppose I was writing an equation. If it was incalculable, it would be due to having structurally written a part wrong. If not, anyone mathematical enough could solve it. If there is ambiguity, something can be rearranged until someone can triangulate what is being communicated based on what they all interpretationally have in common. That’s why I ask. In terms of structure/expression, only one would be an issue and I actively ask about it.
Removed by mod
In line with a part of what I was saying, is it always one’s fault if another person doesn’t understand? This isn’t what one would call “deflecting”, success comes from both ends (one could yell into the void, but is there anyone there who may hear or is it all deaf). I would not blame someone else if this was an issue. For a third time, it’s why I may say to give specific pointers (which nobody has done yet), which would also allow one to know what to dissect, not that two of the five things you mentioned aren’t opposites, as well as range between objective (correctness/completeness when it comes to that) and relative. People ran the whole thing by an algorithm which didn’t have this issue, but then people said they had the same problem from the algorithm, so I’d take a guess and say maybe it’s not just a me thing. Also keep in mind (and this addresses several parts of your dissection), but the first part of all of this is also contextually a recap of a previous inquiry, and much ambiguity comes from the efforts to contrast the two societal concepts a second time (also, does one really need to be ultra specific every time they use an adage like “the old days”?)
“Attention shoppers! We have a lost ChatGPT named Call Me Lenny who was found in the Casual Conversation section of our store. You can find him at the information desk of our instance. Thank you.”
I’m not a lost anything though, just a mod giving her social ideas here.
Could you rephrase your proposed law in a few bullet points?
I’m not sure what the objective is here. Being more mindful of sustainable business?
-
Current law says people must follow wage law for workers
-
This law is based on organized criminals gaming the competition
-
Current law does not say people should give a certain level of social investment
-
But should this be considered since it’s another avenue
Okay. I think I understand.
Right now wages are taxed, and companies paying wages are also taxed, that tax money goes to the government. The government is an organization of the people. Shouldn’t the taxes count as investing back into the social structure?
I don’t mean the social structure. I mean citizens. Company. Companions. Those people who this place is typically all about. Some would say comradery itself is like money.
- Company offers a person a job for a certain amount of money.
- Person works the job
- Company pays person the amount of money agreed
What would you add?
-
Person is also provided for their social needs, parallel to the monetary needs.
-
Person works the job
-
Person goes home not feeling they need to hang out with that bad influence a few houses down because they wouldn’t need to under these circumstance
-
Crime lowers itself because criminals hired to look for the isolated can’t find any low hanging fruit
I don’t understand, do you want social services to be handled by private business instead of the government?
Social services as in what I’m talking about (asking because I never specifically mentioned that)? Nevertheless, anything that works out works, I’m not partial when it comes to that.
Person is also provided for their social needs, parallel to the monetary needs.
Here’s the problem in your thoughts: “social needs” are undefined, and they’re different for everyone. Money is a common denominator, a universal tool for meeting material needs pretty much regardless of what they are. You need food? No need to grow it, spend money. You need a pet? No need to go out and domesticate an animal; spend money. You need a house? No need to build it, spend money.
So what you need to do is come up with a common denominator the bridges the gaps between people’s differing social needs, otherwise you can’t systemise meeting those needs and thus can’t build any social/government infrastructure to do so. You need friends? No need to go out and make them, do _____ instead. Need intimacy? No need to primp or preen, do _____ instead.
And then, how do you stop this “social administration” (for lack of a better name) from being corrupted and turned against the populace?
It doesn’t necessitate an agency if that’s what you’re wondering. It would be more something that can be defined as akin to a norm with systemic aspects in how functionality is ensured but with the gaps filled culturally.
Okay let’s game a scenario, I own a mobile coffee cart. I need somebody to push the card around and sell coffee to people. I find somebody to push the card around and sell coffee. And I pay them x per day.
How do I also provide for their social needs? As a coffee cart service, I can’t provide a break room, the employees are out on their own beats. What would this social structure look like?
Well… the social problem described does/would remain. The execution of the response though is another story. It should be noted the IRS (or whatever the equivalent is in other places) oversees a lot of that business stuff, and that level of things often overlooks matters of wage on a small scale, which here might include the coffee stall thing. So it wouldn’t be alien to chalk up the oversight you bring up to the business type, even if it’s not something anyone looks forward to.
My occupation is very conceptual in its nature, it’s inspired by and one might say connected to a company in Israel called Personal Heroes, which people might know by their explanation of themselves of being to charity what criminal records are to crime. Before I moved to where I am now, they, in a possible effort to maybe make the world a better place, attempted to brainstorm a construct that would act as a makeshift answer to everything I mentioned, along with the already-existent aspects of itself which were inspired by Personal Heroes. It’s the kind of thing you might see on Shark Tank or Dragon’s Den, even though they were never consulted, and such things often go through several drafts/revisions/restructures. The current way it works for us in this part of the occupation is that deals are made which create incentive which is then channeled into a call to combat the bad influences I mentioned by removing their low hanging fruit, which involves competition. In a way, it could be compared to a hookup service if it was with a business model. It works though in a rather rickety way.
-
-
After going back and forth for a bit in the threads below, I’m going to say the plan isn’t workable.
As far as I can tell the core thesis here is Businesses should be responsible for the social well being of a employee outside of the business
Without a concrete definition of what well being actually means, we can’t have a productive discussion here, but its moot. Whatever definition you provide, a business will simply pre-select employees to already satisfy the well-being standard to be eligible for employment.
Looking for a happy employee from a two parent home with a great social life and no drug problem, living in a low crime neighborhood to work 8 hours a day at my coffee shop
Typically businesses become responsible for employee benefits in broken systems where they want to externalize the cost of the benefit without raising taxes (like the USA), but in well function social democratic societies the government actually provides benefits directly via taxes (Scandinavia)
I thought at least the discussion could be considered a good exercise. But everyone frets the small stuff :(
The big issue, is you haven’t given us anything concrete to discuss.
Every single question in this post is just trying to get you to give a concrete example so we can talk about it.
Having read all of this a few times and thinking about each thing being talked about, there is one thing that comes to my mind: discounts
I remember when I was little, there were certain places like the movie theater or certain venues that have a “partnership discount system”. They would treat groups of people with under a certain number of people as a singular individual, more or less, or favorably in certain aspects. They’d make the whole experience this way. If you showed up with a friend, you’d get more out of the experience than if you showed up on your own. Probably how the occupation/client aspect mentioned would work. So there are small social engineering tricks I’m sure which can combine in a contrived way to make a system that entices the middle of Maslow’s needs to be fulfilled.
Something like that in of itself just requires privately enforced discretion.
A minimum level of socialization?
That’s one way one could put it.
I don’t think this is something that can changed with laws. It has to be a cultural thing or else there wouldn’t be that same weight / understanding behind why they need to do it and actually trying to socialize.
Also socialization isn’t as easily quantifiable as money is and once you start doing that then it loses something in the process.
Why not both?
Because trying to make laws around socialization, at least for businesses, will lead to them just optimizing how to be just within the bounds of the law which pushes the problem down further and they have to create a new law for it. This is worse for socialization because it’s ambiguous meaning it can be “satisfied” without really being satisfied.
It’s like a parent telling a child a rule for the house without the child understanding why. The child will follow the rules because there is expected punishment but it is fragile. If the child understands why and agrees then the child will follow the rules and it will be robust.
So yeah you can do both but I think only one of them actually solves the issue, the other just delays it.
Edit: added apostrophes.
In a way, you wouldn’t be wrong, though I like to think of this as being pushed into the realm of experimentation. Even the wage laws everyone knows of were once thought of like this. Not denying impracticality, just saying it seems worth fidgeting on from the drawing board, that and the fact it does describe a real phenomenon.
