5 ms·

No, there are literally no good reasons for that. If you work a full-time job, and I don't care what that job is, your employer absolutely should adequately co

No, there are literally no good reasons for that. If you work a full-time job, and I don't care what that job is, your employer absolutely should adequately compensate you, for the amount of time spent on your job. Your employer is buying your time, the most precious and absolutely non-renewable resource you have. Don't sell it too cheaply.

kahnpro 9y ago
Especially if your full-time job contract specifically prohibits you from getting a second job or doing side jobs. If the company is buying all of your working time then they had damn well better be paying you at least a living wage.
mrkstu 9y ago
So teenagers working part-time need to earn a living wage? Having a one-size-fits-all number is damaging. The problem is workers who don't hone a useful skill and create a record of reliability. Anyone that does that won't be making the minimum wage after a little while, at least in the current economy.
- pc86 9y ago
  Minimum wage is less for teenagers. When I was 15 the minimum wage was $5.15 and I was paid $4.85 because that was the minimum wage for a 15 year old. And it wasn't because I received tips, where the minimum wage was even lower ($2.80 or so I think?)
  - 0xffff2 9y ago
    Where and when was this? That's certainly not true in California in 2018.
- KozmoNau7 9y ago
  I specifically said a full-time job. A full-time job needs a proper full-time wage.
  - astr0n0m3r 9y ago
    The same applies to a married couple where one makes $20/hr and the other $5/hr.
    - KozmoNau7 9y ago
      It is still exploitation. No person in their right mind would work a $5/hr full-time job in the western world, unless they were indoctrinated into a sick "trust us, trickle-down works!" society. Let's flip it around: Why do you think it's reasonable in any way, that an employer wants to hire a full-time worker at way below a living wage? Full-time job must pay full-time wage. Can't afford to run your business then? Too bad, find somewhere cheaper to run it. The city/countryside balance will adjust.
ythn 9y ago
Is being paid a non-living wage better than being paid nothing at all? Say I am a one man shop. I would like an assistant, but I don't actually make enough to pay the assistant a "living wage". My options are to hire an assistant at non-living wages, or not hire an assistant at all. Which is preferable?
- pc86 9y ago
  You can afford to hire a part-time assistant. You shouldn't be able to hire someone to work full-time for you for $20 a week. I hope that's obvious.
  - Agustus 9y ago
    If I wanted to learn from this person their craft and wanted to make a desirable investment in being in their presence and knowledge, you would prevent me from accepting this opportunity?
    - pc86 9y ago
      Don't conflate apprenticeships with taking advantage of poor people. Are you pretending there is no difference between these two scenarios? A) Someone is a gifted tattoo artist and you want to learn the craft from them, so you pay them to teach you. You're responsible for your living expenses and you get by with odd jobs or what-have-you. B) Someone pays you $5/day to do office work for them.
      - ythn 9y ago
        What about: C) Someone is a gifted tattoo artist and you want to learn the craft from them, but you don't have any money to pay them. So the tattoo artist takes you on as a full-time paid intern, making a non-living wage
- dagw 9y ago
  would like an assistant, but I don't actually make enough to pay the assistant a "living wage" Have your assistant come in only 2-3 days a week or or only 3-4 hours in the morning.
Agustus 9y ago
Entry level worker who is not valued the fluctuating livable wage level; where they do not have basic work skills. In San Fransciso, a livable wage might be around $50,000 ($12k for housing, 20k for all taxes, $8k for food and other housing necessities, and 10k for savings, clothes, or insurance); this basically means an hourly wage of $25/hr. As an entry level job this is not a good option for employers and thus why they turn to automation, they know the robots skill and value, but estimating if an entry person can meet these skills is nigh impossible. The other end is that someone is able to underbid you for your time. Which means you can believe you are worth $25/hr, but get no jobs because Jim Burnett will do it for $24 or someone in a lower livable wage area will do it for $5. In this case, you will have no work based on your theory.
- KozmoNau7 9y ago
  Automation is inevitable. It is absolutely not a valid argument for a race to the bottom.
astr0n0m3r 9y ago
Since you literally can't think of a single reason, I thought it would be fun if I tried to think of a reason that I had never heard before (or at least I don't remember hearing). So here it is: Suppose that someone makes $20/hr but only works 20 hours per week. A second (unskilled) job that only pays $5/hr for 20 hours per week would be a significant increase in their income. In fact, where I live that would put them over what is considered a "living wage".
- KozmoNau7 9y ago
  But that's a supplemental part-time job, not a full-time job.

kahnpro 9y ago

Especially if your full-time job contract specifically prohibits you from getting a second job or doing side jobs. If the company is buying all of your working time then they had damn well better be paying you at least a living wage.

mrkstu 9y ago

So teenagers working part-time need to earn a living wage? Having a one-size-fits-all number is damaging. The problem is workers who don't hone a useful skill and create a record of reliability. Anyone that does that won't be making the minimum wage after a little while, at least in the current economy.

pc86 9y ago
Minimum wage is less for teenagers. When I was 15 the minimum wage was $5.15 and I was paid $4.85 because that was the minimum wage for a 15 year old. And it wasn't because I received tips, where the minimum wage was even lower ($2.80 or so I think?)
- 0xffff2 9y ago
  Where and when was this? That's certainly not true in California in 2018.
KozmoNau7 9y ago
I specifically said a full-time job. A full-time job needs a proper full-time wage.
- astr0n0m3r 9y ago
  The same applies to a married couple where one makes $20/hr and the other $5/hr.
  - KozmoNau7 9y ago
    It is still exploitation. No person in their right mind would work a $5/hr full-time job in the western world, unless they were indoctrinated into a sick "trust us, trickle-down works!" society. Let's flip it around: Why do you think it's reasonable in any way, that an employer wants to hire a full-time worker at way below a living wage? Full-time job must pay full-time wage. Can't afford to run your business then? Too bad, find somewhere cheaper to run it. The city/countryside balance will adjust.

ythn 9y ago

Is being paid a non-living wage better than being paid nothing at all? Say I am a one man shop. I would like an assistant, but I don't actually make enough to pay the assistant a "living wage". My options are to hire an assistant at non-living wages, or not hire an assistant at all. Which is preferable?

pc86 9y ago
You can afford to hire a part-time assistant. You shouldn't be able to hire someone to work full-time for you for $20 a week. I hope that's obvious.
- Agustus 9y ago
  If I wanted to learn from this person their craft and wanted to make a desirable investment in being in their presence and knowledge, you would prevent me from accepting this opportunity?
  - pc86 9y ago
    Don't conflate apprenticeships with taking advantage of poor people. Are you pretending there is no difference between these two scenarios? A) Someone is a gifted tattoo artist and you want to learn the craft from them, so you pay them to teach you. You're responsible for your living expenses and you get by with odd jobs or what-have-you. B) Someone pays you $5/day to do office work for them.
    - ythn 9y ago
      What about: C) Someone is a gifted tattoo artist and you want to learn the craft from them, but you don't have any money to pay them. So the tattoo artist takes you on as a full-time paid intern, making a non-living wage
dagw 9y ago
would like an assistant, but I don't actually make enough to pay the assistant a "living wage" Have your assistant come in only 2-3 days a week or or only 3-4 hours in the morning.

Agustus 9y ago

Entry level worker who is not valued the fluctuating livable wage level; where they do not have basic work skills. In San Fransciso, a livable wage might be around $50,000 ($12k for housing, 20k for all taxes, $8k for food and other housing necessities, and 10k for savings, clothes, or insurance); this basically means an hourly wage of $25/hr. As an entry level job this is not a good option for employers and thus why they turn to automation, they know the robots skill and value, but estimating if an entry person can meet these skills is nigh impossible. The other end is that someone is able to underbid you for your time. Which means you can believe you are worth $25/hr, but get no jobs because Jim Burnett will do it for $24 or someone in a lower livable wage area will do it for $5. In this case, you will have no work based on your theory.

KozmoNau7 9y ago
Automation is inevitable. It is absolutely not a valid argument for a race to the bottom.

astr0n0m3r 9y ago

Since you literally can't think of a single reason, I thought it would be fun if I tried to think of a reason that I had never heard before (or at least I don't remember hearing). So here it is: Suppose that someone makes $20/hr but only works 20 hours per week. A second (unskilled) job that only pays $5/hr for 20 hours per week would be a significant increase in their income. In fact, where I live that would put them over what is considered a "living wage".

KozmoNau7 9y ago
But that's a supplemental part-time job, not a full-time job.