Tuesday, 5 September 2017
quote [ The question is: Will consumers cough up the extra money if they know it will help some of the area’s lowest-paid workers? For Seyedian, this is a moral issue. ]
Sad that the headline is meant to be a shocker. Washington Post, so, as usual, full text in extended. Edited for format and includes pictures.
Full accredited Washington Post article in spoiler:
|
satanspenis666 said @ 2:46am GMT on 5th Sep
[Score:1 Informative]
|
3333 said @ 1:05am GMT on 5th Sep
Why did you reprint the text in the extended? |
midden said[1] @ 1:45am GMT on 5th Sep
[Score:1 Good]
Because the Washington Post has a limit on how many articles you can read per month. Some people can follow the main link and it will work fine. For others who have passed their limit, it will bring them to a pay wall. For those people, the accredited article is presented in full in the extended, inside a spoiler window to save real estate.
Plus to rob The Washington Post of well earned income. |
arrowhen said[1] @ 2:02am GMT on 5th Sep
Information wants to be free.
|
cb361 said @ 9:44am GMT on 5th Sep
My cock wants to be free.
|
lilmookieesquire said @ 2:04am GMT on 5th Sep
Why do you ask of us such questions, comrade three thousand three hundred and thirty of three?
|
cb361 said @ 9:51am GMT on 5th Sep
I am not a number!
|
Hugh E. said[1] @ 2:17am GMT on 5th Sep
OK, I know this isn't the major takeaway, but it only costs $139 to both have a clean apartment AND not be a contributor to the general assholery?! And that's in the stupidly overpriced DC! I've just assumed cleaning services were a lot more. If a firm specifically advertised living wages in my area, I'd have a clean home.
|
foobar said @ 2:53am GMT on 5th Sep
Even assuming it's two people for two hours, that's still only $64 in wages.
|
midden said @ 10:01am GMT on 5th Sep
Then there's equipment, transportation, health insurance, liability insurance, social security taxes, advertising, administration overhead, office rental, etc. As with wholesale vs retail markup, doubling the cost to the consumer is perfectly reasonable if you want to stay in business.
|
foobar said @ 4:47am GMT on 6th Sep
Sure, but it's hardly cheap by any reasonable standard.
|
eggboy said @ 3:19am GMT on 5th Sep
Just give the cleaners recognisable outfits or vehicles and it will become a status thing. People will want their neighbours to see them get the 'good' cleaners.
|
midden said @ 1:03pm GMT on 5th Sep
Ain't nothin' wrong with that. Like the first big wave of status conscious Prius and Tesla owners, it's a good thing, regardless of the motive.
All those 13.1 and 26.2 stickers used to bug me, until I realised the social status and pressure they represent is probably doing a lot of good for the people displaying them. Assuming they were real. |
dolemite said @ 2:59pm GMT on 5th Sep
So maybe this company figured out that if you pay a decent wage you'll likely get a lot more job applications, allowing you to pick better employees which would enhance the productivity, reputation and sustainability of your business.
On the customer side it's not really that difficult to understand the value in paying slightly more for cleaning staff who are significantly more likely to do a thorough job and significantly less likely to steal things from your home. Heck, even if a severe brain injury or congenital defect has left you an outspoken fan of unregulated Capitalism, you might still prefer this company's cleaning service because of your misinformed hope that higher wages will mean that the cleaners coming into your home are more likely to be white and relatively free of tattoos. |
midden said[1] @ 4:12pm GMT on 5th Sep
Nicely done web site, too:
https://www.wellpaidmaids.com/ |
3333 said @ 5:54pm GMT on 5th Sep
[Score:-1 Old]
filtered comment under your threshold |
midden said @ 6:18pm GMT on 5th Sep
Not bad for her first gig out of college. She's got writing credits at The NYT and Atlantic, too.
|