5 ms·

Jobs are still jobs, though. If people are still employed then that means that there are still jobs for people to do.

vkou 9y ago
There are always 'jobs' for people to do. I, for one, would love to have a dozen servants to do everything for me. I'm just not interested in paying them a living wage. Most of those temp jobs do not pay a living wage. They exist because of the largess of either government subsidies for the working poor, the largess of relatives of the working poor, or because said working poor are burning the furniture to keep warm. (And the government will have to bail them out when they reach retirement age.) A job that doesn't, or can't pay a living wage is a net drain on the economy. It expects somebody else to subsidize the person working it.
- TimPC 9y ago
  This is true only when the alternative is a living wage job. A job that needs a top-up of benefits from the government is economically better for the government than that person relying entirely on government benefits. Most companies that pay low wages would potentially not exist if they had to pay $15+ an hour today. At a minimum the price structure of goods would radically alter and the incentives to cut workforce would dramatically increase. The poor aren’t necessarily better off with higher salary if that salary is paid for by higher prices on everything they buy.
  - vkou 9y ago
    > A job that needs a top-up of benefits from the government is economically better for the government than that person relying entirely on government benefits. Unless the government could instead be paying that person to do something useful for all of society, instead of something that benefits only me. This election has shown that millions of people want meaningful work. Like teaching and caring for children, filling potholes, building bridges, laying down light transit rail, digging trenches to bring fiber to slow-connection areas... Every single time we talk about infrastructure, we are constrained by how broke the government is. Meanwhile, real unemployment is at 9%, and public funds are paying underemployed people to be greeters at Wal-Mart, and mowing lawns at the Google campus. I also assure you that my subsidized servants will not be bringing down the price of bread at the grocery, for anyone - poor or otherwise.
    - H1Supreme 9y ago
      Great point. The amount of infrastructure that needs upgraded in the USA is massive. Subsidizing shitty retail jobs is such a waste.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - s73ver 9y ago
    I don't completely believe that. Further, if these companies are not offering jobs with living wages, and expecting the safety net to pick up the slack, why are we not taxing the hell out of them? At least to the point where they pay back what they've drained.
ThomPete 9y ago
Jobs are jobs there are just less and less of those who can pay a salary you can live from. Not sure what you are trying to say.

vkou 9y ago

There are always 'jobs' for people to do. I, for one, would love to have a dozen servants to do everything for me. I'm just not interested in paying them a living wage. Most of those temp jobs do not pay a living wage. They exist because of the largess of either government subsidies for the working poor, the largess of relatives of the working poor, or because said working poor are burning the furniture to keep warm. (And the government will have to bail them out when they reach retirement age.) A job that doesn't, or can't pay a living wage is a net drain on the economy. It expects somebody else to subsidize the person working it.

TimPC 9y ago
This is true only when the alternative is a living wage job. A job that needs a top-up of benefits from the government is economically better for the government than that person relying entirely on government benefits. Most companies that pay low wages would potentially not exist if they had to pay $15+ an hour today. At a minimum the price structure of goods would radically alter and the incentives to cut workforce would dramatically increase. The poor aren’t necessarily better off with higher salary if that salary is paid for by higher prices on everything they buy.
- vkou 9y ago
  > A job that needs a top-up of benefits from the government is economically better for the government than that person relying entirely on government benefits. Unless the government could instead be paying that person to do something useful for all of society, instead of something that benefits only me. This election has shown that millions of people want meaningful work. Like teaching and caring for children, filling potholes, building bridges, laying down light transit rail, digging trenches to bring fiber to slow-connection areas... Every single time we talk about infrastructure, we are constrained by how broke the government is. Meanwhile, real unemployment is at 9%, and public funds are paying underemployed people to be greeters at Wal-Mart, and mowing lawns at the Google campus. I also assure you that my subsidized servants will not be bringing down the price of bread at the grocery, for anyone - poor or otherwise.
  - H1Supreme 9y ago
    Great point. The amount of infrastructure that needs upgraded in the USA is massive. Subsidizing shitty retail jobs is such a waste.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- s73ver 9y ago
  I don't completely believe that. Further, if these companies are not offering jobs with living wages, and expecting the safety net to pick up the slack, why are we not taxing the hell out of them? At least to the point where they pay back what they've drained.

ThomPete 9y ago

Jobs are jobs there are just less and less of those who can pay a salary you can live from. Not sure what you are trying to say.