6 ms·

> If you can't pay a basic living wage, for fair hours, in safe conditions, with necessary medical benefits, then you don't have a job to offer. Why not let th

• codedokode 8y ago
  This will lead to worsening conditions. For example, a person who lives with parents and doesn't pay any rent can work for significantly lower salary than the one who lives alone. For him even $1/hour is better than getting $0 sitting at home. Or immigrants who live 8 people in a room will be happy to work for a lower pay. The number of available jobs is limited. So people with higher demands, especially people with kids, will have a tough choice: either stay unemployed or live 8 people in a room too.
  • civilian 8y ago
    The number of available jobs is _not_ limited, it's a supply and demand curve! An employer doesn't just have X jobs to fill a business. They have some number of tasks to do, and there's always more they could be doing. If they have the option of hiring some people at $5/hr and some at $10/hr, the boss can figure out how to get at least $5/hr in value out of the cheaper people he hires. I think the person living with parents is a bad example too. $1/hr is nothing, and it'd probably just be better for that person to not have a job at all. Sometimes doing nothing is better than having a job that crappy.
    • codedokode 8y ago
      $1/hour is not nothing. If you work full month you get $160 which is more than $0 that you get playing games all day long (also you spend less on an electicity bill). So it is more beneficial than doing nothing. In a market without minimun wage you'll have to compete against such people for a job.
  • bhupy 8y ago
    This sounds like a welfare problem and not a wage problem. If the market drives down the cost of labor, that's good for everyone. If there exists people whose skillsets aren't sufficient to maintain some minimum standard of living, we ought to give them welfare, either in the form of direct money or "free" goods/services.
• kazen44 8y ago
  because employees have inherently more power then workers in suchs an example. Workers need wages and money to survive in the economy, and usually have little negotiation power compared to (massive) companies. You could argue we could go back to the 1800's in terms of labour standards, but don't be suprised when workers simply decide to kill their bosses and companies retaliating[1]. Diminishing labour rights is just asking for another violent class struggle. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Labor_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Labor_Wars
  • ttoinou 8y ago
    Why would they have more power ? Employees have the power to say no, shop somewhere else, to do a shitty job / not follow orders and let the employer figure it out, quit when they want, leave the employers without the job being done overnight. They also receive something very defined and predictable (money defined in the contract) in exchange for some vague objectives where the employers needs to constantly check if the company mission is being fulfilled, and constantly update this mission. Workers need wages and money to survive in the economy And employers don't need wages and money to "survive in the economy" ?
    • czep 8y ago
      > And employers don't need wages and money to "survive in the economy" ? Not if they inherited it. The key idea here is asymmetry of power. When people are desperate enough that they would take a sub-minimum wage job, this doesn't necessarily imply a "voluntary exchange". If you're facing starvation or medical bankruptcy, you are essentially being coerced to take any job you can find.
      • ttoinou 8y ago
        If you're worried about people being in bad situations, why do you think laws that would prevent them from improving their situation is a good idea ? What do you do with those that are not in this situation, yet still interested in the jobs you judge not good ? How can you make that judgment for others ?
• sumedh 8y ago
  > If there exists people willing to voluntarily take a job given its wage/conditions, Lot of those people are illegal immigrants as well. They cant job hop.
  • justtopost 8y ago
    They can if legal. I am not interested in supporting crime. You can argue that it is a crime worth comitting for many people, but its still not something we should encourage in employment law of all places.
    • sumedh 8y ago
      > They can if legal I am talking about illegal immigrants who work for shady temp agencies and then are contracted to work for big players.
• simias 8y ago
  In the past I've been downvoted for replying to such a comment with something along the lines of "that makes sense if you're a libertarian". I think people assumed that I was baiting for something but I'm actually totally genuine when I say that: if you think a totally libertarian society is the way to go then things like minimum wage make little sense, just let individuals figure out what they want and don't want to do. If you don't go full libertarian and you think that the state should provide some level of protection then things change because if people are not paid enough to live a decent life they'll end up falling into one of society's safety net (cost of law enforcement if people start stealing, cost of welfare if they require handouts to eat decently, cost to social security if they become sick due to poor living or working conditions etc...). In such a situation you basically end with society subsidizing these jobs indirectly by cleaning the mess. That's why it makes more sense to simply force decent working conditions instead of encouraging a destructive race to the bottom. Now in practice, regardless of our opinions, the USA is not a libertarian state, there are security nets, there is a certain level of socialized assistance (too much for some, not enough for others). In this situation it makes complete sense to have things like minimum wages and laws making it mandatory to wear your seat belt for instance.
• EliRivers 8y ago
  That leads to a society that, it appears, many people don't want to live in. Many people don't want to live in a USA where people can work full-time and yet still have miserable lives bereft of hope. Some people do want to live in that USA; we see every day the battles as these differing visions of the USA compete.
  • austenallred 8y ago
    What do you think would happen if there were open borders? Would the US see net inflow or outflow of populace?
    • deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    • EliRivers 8y ago
      Passive-aggressive nonsense elsewhere, please. If you've got a point or comment, that's on-topic, just make it.
      • austenallred 8y ago
        Was an earnest question, and related to the topic at hand. How would people vote with their feet?
        • EliRivers 8y ago
          I genuinely believe that you're not asking that question in good faith; I believe that for whatever reason, you have some issue with my assertion that some people want one kind of society in the US and some people want a different kind (nothing wrong with having a different opinion), and I genuinely believe that your question is, rather than an honest question on that topic, some kind of sideways attack on this, perhaps based on the practicality of maintaining a decent society, but without actually stating your case such that it can be discussed. Part of this belief is based on the fact that your question is a fake question (and that when it was clear that I was suspicious of your motives, you simply repeated it without any amplifying remarks - you knew I didn't understand, but you didn't do anything to help me understand you). That the answer is apparent to everyone involved, but drawing our attention to that answer doesn't actually add anything to the conversation. If your fake question did actually add to the topic, it would be a useful rhetorical device, but it doesn't. In effect, you've stated "people want to move to the US" and... that's it. How's that relevant? I don't think it is. I think it's just a veiled attempt to derail. As such, I choose not to engage. If I have mistaken your intentions, I do apologise, but that's what I believe. In that case, at least now you know why I think you're acting in bad faith.
• goldenCeasar 8y ago
  Because human dignity.
• alkonaut 8y ago
  > Why not let the employees decide if the job is worth taking? That's the way it should work. And in a functioning market, employees don't make these decisions alone against large corporations, they make those decisoins in large groups like voters or in a union. Thinking that each employer is free to offer and each employee is free to value whether its worth it makes for some kind of "free market" balance for labor is pretty naïve when it comes to individuals vs large corporations. We wouldn't allow employers to bargain on risk and "letting the employee decide whether the risk is worth taking", I don't see any difference with wages.
• phil248 8y ago
  If you, as a company, can't exchange full time work for an amount of money that keeps an individual out of poverty, you're forcing the rest of society to cover the difference. That's not a deal any government, or any taxpayers, should want to be a part of. I don't want my taxes subsidizing profitable corporations because they can find people willing to work for sub-poverty wages who fill in the gaps using the welfare state.
  • bhupy 8y ago
    But isn't using welfare to fill in the gaps the most efficient solution? A well functioning market drives down the cost of goods and services to the minimum possible price, provided there's adequate competition. Commoditization is a good thing. The fact that bread and milk only cost a few dollars is net-good for society. Commoditization of labor should, thus, also be similarly good for society. At the end of the day, we as a society (rightly) demand a minimum standard of living for everyone, and we collectively pay for that one way or the other. Either we pay taxes to fund a welfare state, or we pay inflated prices for goods and services to maintain wage floors. I'd argue that paying taxes for welfare is more progressive, as the burden falls on richer people. Paying inflated prices for goods and services is regressive as it's a burden that falls equally on the rich and the poor. As long as we make sure that markets are competitive via regulation and that everything is commoditized, this sounds like a welfare problem and not a wage problem.
    • fabricexpert 8y ago
      That's not what actually happens though. The rich avoid the tax and push for tax reduction and the poor don't get the welfare they need.
      • bhupy 8y ago
        Are you suggesting that welfare can never work?
        • fabricexpert 8y ago
• ghobs91 8y ago
  Because employers often have more power than employees in that negotiation. they'll pay as little as possible/legal, with working conditions skirting what's allowed by law. On top of that, taxpayers will have to foot the bill by funding welfare to all these people whose labor is being exploited. Especially since they increasingly don't have the negotiating power of a union to make this idealistic vision you have of the job market fair to both sides. Techies like to believe they're enlightened when they lean libertarian, when in reality all that amounts to is privatized gains, socialized losses.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• munificent 8y ago
  Because jobs are nowhere near a perfect market. * The switching cost for jobs is very high. You lose the social network of people you know at the old job, all of the knowledge and skill that's specific to that company goes out the window, you may have to uproot and move. * Jobs are not transparent. It is fantastically hard to tell if a new job is going to be better than your current job. You know the base numbers like pay, but you have little way to accurately evaluate the culture, office politics, other people, management, company direction, etc. * In many areas, there are few jobs to choose between. Amazon fulfillment centers are a good example because they hire many people in a areas with few other jobs to choose from. (This is also, I think, a big reason for the demographic changes towards cities in the US today: they give employees access to a more diverse job market.) * Jobs are not homogeneous and interchangeable. One job might have better hours or a shorter commute but worse coworkers. One may pay more but have worse health insurance. There is so much variance that it's impossible to define an "optimal" job or even precisely compare two jobs.
  • your-nanny 8y ago
    forgot to mention those nasty anti-market non competes.
• rifung 8y ago
  If a job doesn't provide the means to survive then the government is subsidizing these jobs assuming you make sure everyone has enough to live. Another issue is that the unemployment rate is no longer meaningful although that could be solved by having another statistic but unemployment is much easier to measure.
  • bhupy 8y ago
    At the end of the day, we as a society rightly demand a minimum standard of living for everyone, and we collectively pay for that in one way or the other. Either we pay taxes to fund a welfare state, or we pay inflated prices for goods and services to maintain wage floors. The argument I'm making here is paying taxes for welfare is more progressive, as the burden falls on richer people. Paying inflated prices for goods and services is regressive as it's a burden that falls equally on the rich and the poor.
    • rifung 8y ago
      That is an interesting perspective that I admittedly did not think of. However why do the prices have to be inflated? Can't the company just accept lower profits? That would be progressive since most of the profits currently go to the rich at least for public companies no?
      • bhupy 8y ago
        It would actually be a good thing for the prices to be inflated because that would mean that the market is competitive. In a competitive market, profit margins are typically very thin, so unless the increase in labor cost is passed onto the customer, the business will have to operate at a loss.