4 ms·

No, I disagree. The company is getting away with paying less because of welfare. And I reject the false choice you presented. The company should be paying a liv

by s73ver 9y ago

No, I disagree. The company is getting away with paying less because of welfare. And I reject the false choice you presented. The company should be paying a living wage, plain and simple. If they can't, then they go out of business. One which is better run will take it's place.

blfr 9y ago
And the government is getting away with providing less welfare because the company is paying. The company probably can pay more, the large ones always can, but then they would hire someone else. At a higher price point, a better employee will take their place.
- s73ver 9y ago
  No. The government is still having to provide welfare because the company is shirking it's responsibilities. I'm sorry, but I will not accept the argument that it is ok for a company to have their employees on welfare. They are a for-profit entity. I should not be subsidizing them because they choose not to pay their employees enough.
  - BigJono 9y ago
    You're taking a very narrow view of the issue. There's no arbitrary obligation for a company to pay a "liveable wage", whatever that is. The whole minimum wage debate in the US is a shitshow. Both sides of the debate are equally idiotic. What matters is minimising the amount of welfare the government has to pay to keep people out of poverty. If the minimum wage is too low, then like you say, the government has to subsidise some companies that can afford to pay more but aren't, because there's a surplus of labor. If the minimum wage is too high, then people that would otherwise be employed become unemployed, and stop generating any wealth, which results in the government having to pay more welfare overall. This is a complex problem that needs to be solved using large amounts of data. Arguments like yours barely scratch the surface.
    - s73ver 9y ago
      "There's no arbitrary obligation for a company to pay a "liveable wage", whatever that is." And I disagree. I believe there is. At the very least, I believe that a company should not be relying on labor subsidized by welfare.
troupe 9y ago
> The company should be paying a living wage So you are saying that an external force should make companies pay different wages to different employees depending on what a particular person needs for their standard of living?
- s73ver 9y ago
  I'm saying that if someone is working full-time for a company, and they still require welfare, then that company is at fault.
  - troupe 9y ago
    The cut off for welfare is determined by the size of your family. So to achieve what you describe, a company that has two people of the same minimal capabilities should pay the one that has kids more than the one that doesn't. Also it is possible to live without welfare (even if you qualify) if your expenses are low, but require welfare if your expenses are high. So it would also follow that two employees of equal value to a company would be paid differently with the larger amount going to the one who is living in more expensive housing.

by s73ver 9y ago

blfr 9y ago

And the government is getting away with providing less welfare because the company is paying. The company probably can pay more, the large ones always can, but then they would hire someone else. At a higher price point, a better employee will take their place.

s73ver 9y ago
No. The government is still having to provide welfare because the company is shirking it's responsibilities. I'm sorry, but I will not accept the argument that it is ok for a company to have their employees on welfare. They are a for-profit entity. I should not be subsidizing them because they choose not to pay their employees enough.
- BigJono 9y ago
  You're taking a very narrow view of the issue. There's no arbitrary obligation for a company to pay a "liveable wage", whatever that is. The whole minimum wage debate in the US is a shitshow. Both sides of the debate are equally idiotic. What matters is minimising the amount of welfare the government has to pay to keep people out of poverty. If the minimum wage is too low, then like you say, the government has to subsidise some companies that can afford to pay more but aren't, because there's a surplus of labor. If the minimum wage is too high, then people that would otherwise be employed become unemployed, and stop generating any wealth, which results in the government having to pay more welfare overall. This is a complex problem that needs to be solved using large amounts of data. Arguments like yours barely scratch the surface.
  - s73ver 9y ago
    "There's no arbitrary obligation for a company to pay a "liveable wage", whatever that is." And I disagree. I believe there is. At the very least, I believe that a company should not be relying on labor subsidized by welfare.

troupe 9y ago

> The company should be paying a living wage So you are saying that an external force should make companies pay different wages to different employees depending on what a particular person needs for their standard of living?

s73ver 9y ago
I'm saying that if someone is working full-time for a company, and they still require welfare, then that company is at fault.
- troupe 9y ago
  The cut off for welfare is determined by the size of your family. So to achieve what you describe, a company that has two people of the same minimal capabilities should pay the one that has kids more than the one that doesn't. Also it is possible to live without welfare (even if you qualify) if your expenses are low, but require welfare if your expenses are high. So it would also follow that two employees of equal value to a company would be paid differently with the larger amount going to the one who is living in more expensive housing.