> All arguments against lower class people getting higher wages are IMHO wildly inappropriate.

This kind of emotional reasoning is wildly inappropriate IMHO.

The commenter is not making an argument against lifting lower class wages. They’re making an observation of how economic theory may apply to this scenario.

> pay them fairly

Define “fairly”?

▲

tossandthrow 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Define “fairly”?

In this context of wage compression it is fairly easy as it is just ensuring that they are paid comparatively more than the more junior employees that apparently are getting the same or close to the same salary.

▲

wat10000 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

They said it’s bad for one group and neutral for another. How is that not an argument against it?

▲

ryanjshaw 3 days ago | parent [-]

If I make the observation that some vaccines can have anaphylaxis as a side effect, am I making an argument against vaccinations? Obviously not. In that case, you’d take precautions at vaccination sites: have EpiPens available, make people wait 15min after taking the shot before leaving.

In this case, I’m sure you can apply yourself and think of ways we can counter the effects of wage compression now that we’ve unemotionally identified the fact that it occurs.

	▲	wat10000 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The analogous argument would be that vaccines cause anaphylaxis and don’t prevent disease. If you made those statements then that’s clearly an argument against using them.
	▲	tossandthrow 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		To stay in your vaccine narrative: if I say that you expose other people to a health risk for not getting vaccinated - then yes this is an argument for getting vaccinated. The observation is not that vaccines have (side)-effects, but how these effects affect other people. And that is what loads the argument.