3 ms·
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
by 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 agoYou'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.