this post was submitted on 31 May 2026
1887 points (99.2% liked)
Work Reform
16754 readers
123 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If fast-food workers began earning wages comparable to electricians, I wouldn't necessarily expect electricians to become poorer. I'd expect employers who depend on skilled labor to increase compensation to remain competitive. The question then becomes whether those higher labor costs come from reduced profits, increased prices, greater productivity, or some combination of all three.
Anyway, it is better for all workers.
what you'd actually see is increased unemployment, because that's the most effective regulator of salaries. the system requires a mass of people without jobs in order to balance itself.
I don't know where you got this idea, it seems more like the system requires desperate people and lack of jobs does help in causing that. However, fuck the system
it's pretty simple; given offers of two identical jobs with different benefits, you'd pick the better one. if there isn't enough people to fill all open positions, employers need to compete by raising benefits. in short, price follows demand. the more people that are looking for jobs, the lower employers can push salaries and still hire someone.
when neolibs campaign on how "everyone should have a job" and use that as an excuse to cut unemployment benefits, that's them trying to distract from the fact that unemployment is necessary for the system they built to function. as unemployment approaches zero, salaries approach infinity.
so yeah, fuck that system.
A few percent of job seekers as structural unemployment supports a healthy economy where people change jobs and careers to match changes in labor needs.
That doesn't mean an increase in minimum wage increases unemployment. There are hundreds of academic studies investigating that question, and it seems the increased economic activity of low-income people having more money generates enough new jobs to at least balance whatever job cuts happen due to the higher labor costs (low-income people tend to spend all their money, so they are more effective agents of short term economic stimulus than higher-income households that tend to save some of it).
i was more thinking the other way round, that an increase in unemployment decreases wages.
Increased unemployment can lead to decreased wages, depending on other factors. I had read your post above as claiming a multipart chain of higher minimum wage -> increased unemployment -> decreased wages, and my post was intended to address the first link (higher minimum wage -> increased unemployment), not the second.
i don't think i even made the first claim, at least i didn't intend to.