4 ms·
You could argue that poverty is a negative externality of a low wage business model, and business is responsible for covering that negative cost to society. It'
by TheBeardKing 8y ago
You could argue that poverty is a negative externality of a low wage business model, and business is responsible for covering that negative cost to society. It's in line with a factory paying for the costs of controlling its own pollution. But the argument really only holds true if you have a deterministic view of people's careers - are some inevitably committed to a low wage career because of external factors? Or are they stuck in those jobs by choice?
- harryh 8y agoI don't think that is a good argument because businesses don't create the poverty you are talking about. The poverty existed before the business was there unlike, say, pollution.
- TheBeardKing 8y agoNot necessarily true. Look at Wal-Mart, which out-competes local businesses offering better salaries by cutting labor costs to the bone.
- harryh 8y agoMaaaaaaaaayyyyybbbbbeeee. Empirical studies of this sort of effect are mixed at best. It's telling that Sander's proposed bill would only require "large employers" to pay up here. If local businesses were all paying higher salaries already they wouldn't need this exemption in the first place.
- nerfhammer 8y ago> better salaries by cutting labor costs Wait, what?
- lvh 8y agoYou misparsed that sentence. The small companies offer better salaries, the large company cuts labor costs, by cutting labor costs they can compete on price, by competing on price they win market share, meaning small companies go out of business.