basically. To manipulating the reader into thinking that workers being paid well or according to their "benefit" is the natural, logistical, or otherwise expected outcome.
It is an attempt to switch the roles between what the conventional, familiar, and safe what is unconventional, weird, and strange.
Paying workers according to "benefit" is not tried and true. It has real challenges and problems.
I don't think it's wrong to pay workers according to the value they provide. It's just not normal (again, not necessarily a good thing), so use of the word "strange" is inaccurate - in addition to being a manipulative use of the word (it's pretty clear that the writer doesn't actually think it's strange, and is using the word to tug on heart strings).
Your are out to lunch. I'm not sure what you think I'm advocating for or what I'm trying to be manipulative based on my short comment but you need to take a minute and think about how other people come to the conversation and that they don't come with some embedded agenda.
> Those industries don't pay well to anyone involved but are a global benefit. Such a strange world we live in.
It's pretty clear that are are trying to manipulate readers through your suggestive use of "strange". You're not actually confused by it - you're trying to suggest something about labor laws or pay or something without actually making a point, through the use of suggestive language. People do not talk like that unless they're adding a subtext.
Its pretty clear to you because you seem to think the world is black and white and you are very self assured. However I can tell you, whether you believe me or not, that was most certainly not intended or implied (either knowingly or unknowingly). Any way please continue to speak my intentions with your self proclaimed authority.
