3 ms·

Do you have a source to back that claim? I can't find anything that states "full time" equals "living wage". Only referring to the minimum number of hours an em

Do you have a source to back that claim? I can't find anything that states "full time" equals "living wage". Only referring to the minimum number of hours an employee has to work from receive benefits "part time" employees typically don't get, like paid time off or health insurance. Additionally the Fair Labor Standards Act (for US anyway) does not give any formal definition of "full time" work, and is up to the employer. Only that covered nonexempt workers working more than 40 hours are entitled to overtime. It's fine to disagree, but at least provide some sort of substance to your argument...

atwebb 7y ago
Personally, it is in the name: full-time job. It takes your full job time, it says that there is a measurable amount of job you can have and that it is full with that one. Following that logic, if you fill all of your available job time, there is an assumption (mine and others) that it would provide simply because if you can't, you need more job to do so, making it not a full-time job.
- kuzimoto 7y ago
  The problem with your logic, is that you still don't define what "full time" equals. There are 24 hours in a day, so is full-time working 24 hours/day? Obviously that's not practical, but then where do you draw the line? Any conclusion you come up with is completely subjective, and might fit for some people, and might not for others. Maybe someone's full-time job is someone else's part-time job.
  - fwip 7y ago
    That's not a problem with their logic, that's a problem of your pedantry. Draw the line wherever you think it should be drawn. Their argument is still true. The argument doesn't change whether full-time is 25 hours or 75 hours. Every single adult working whatever society agrees is "full time" should be able to live comfortably on those wages.
    - kuzimoto 7y ago
      > Every single adult working whatever society agrees is "full time" should be able to live comfortably on those wages. I agree that would be nice, it's just not possible in a free market. Is there any country where everyone lives comfortably working full time at any job?
      - fwip 7y ago
        That darn free market. If only there was some way to, idk, regulate it, or something. Unfortunately, it's an inevitable law of nature and we are helpless in the face of its wrath.
        kuzimoto 7y ago
        The free market doesn't leave people helpless, it empowers. With enough effort, you can do nearly anything. Additional regulation usually makes it harder for small business to operate. Actually, let's just make the minimum wage $30/hr and everything will be great.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - skosch 7y ago
        It's great that you understand how supply and demand works, but look beyond that. At some point in the mid-term future, automation will take over enough labor that a sizeable chunk of the (educated, motivated) population won't be able to find a job at all. Supply non-zero, demand zero, ergo price zero. In that world, should we just let people starve?
        satyrnein 7y ago
        That seems like an argument for basic income or similar. The topic at hand is raising minimum wage, which could only accelerate job loss due to automation.
FireBeyond 7y ago
Let's not pretend that the US is a model society for work-life balance, and employee rights.
- kuzimoto 7y ago
  Well work-life balance has to do with the individual. If you don't want to work crazy hours, don't take a job that makes you work crazy hours, or make it clear to your employer that you wont do that before starting your job. What sort of employee rights is the US lacking?
  - minikites 7y ago
    >If you don't want to work crazy hours, don't take a job that makes you work crazy hours, or make it clear to your employer that you wont do that before starting your job. Why do you think people have this ability and choose not to use it? Do you think they're all too stupid to think of it?
    - kuzimoto 7y ago
      >Why do you think people have this ability and choose not to use it? I can speculate but I couldn't know everyone's reasons. Employment is a contract, and people are free to either terminate it and find a new job, or negotiate the terms on getting hired. There will be consequences, presumably you may not get paid as much, or get promoted over someone else but you can still work a livable wage. > Do you think they're all too stupid to think of it? I don't think people are too stupid, I'd guess maybe they feel peer pressure to do it if others around them are doing the same thing.
CaptainZapp 7y ago
Do you have a source to back that claim? Why would he need a source to back an opinion?
- kuzimoto 7y ago
  "That's the very definition" sounds a lot more like a statement of fact than an opinion. I want to know where it was defined, and by whom.

atwebb 7y ago

Personally, it is in the name: full-time job. It takes your full job time, it says that there is a measurable amount of job you can have and that it is full with that one. Following that logic, if you fill all of your available job time, there is an assumption (mine and others) that it would provide simply because if you can't, you need more job to do so, making it not a full-time job.

kuzimoto 7y ago
The problem with your logic, is that you still don't define what "full time" equals. There are 24 hours in a day, so is full-time working 24 hours/day? Obviously that's not practical, but then where do you draw the line? Any conclusion you come up with is completely subjective, and might fit for some people, and might not for others. Maybe someone's full-time job is someone else's part-time job.
- fwip 7y ago
  That's not a problem with their logic, that's a problem of your pedantry. Draw the line wherever you think it should be drawn. Their argument is still true. The argument doesn't change whether full-time is 25 hours or 75 hours. Every single adult working whatever society agrees is "full time" should be able to live comfortably on those wages.
  - kuzimoto 7y ago
    > Every single adult working whatever society agrees is "full time" should be able to live comfortably on those wages. I agree that would be nice, it's just not possible in a free market. Is there any country where everyone lives comfortably working full time at any job?
    - fwip 7y ago
      That darn free market. If only there was some way to, idk, regulate it, or something. Unfortunately, it's an inevitable law of nature and we are helpless in the face of its wrath.
      - kuzimoto 7y ago
        The free market doesn't leave people helpless, it empowers. With enough effort, you can do nearly anything. Additional regulation usually makes it harder for small business to operate. Actually, let's just make the minimum wage $30/hr and everything will be great.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - skosch 7y ago
      It's great that you understand how supply and demand works, but look beyond that. At some point in the mid-term future, automation will take over enough labor that a sizeable chunk of the (educated, motivated) population won't be able to find a job at all. Supply non-zero, demand zero, ergo price zero. In that world, should we just let people starve?
      - satyrnein 7y ago
        That seems like an argument for basic income or similar. The topic at hand is raising minimum wage, which could only accelerate job loss due to automation.

FireBeyond 7y ago

Let's not pretend that the US is a model society for work-life balance, and employee rights.

kuzimoto 7y ago
Well work-life balance has to do with the individual. If you don't want to work crazy hours, don't take a job that makes you work crazy hours, or make it clear to your employer that you wont do that before starting your job. What sort of employee rights is the US lacking?
- minikites 7y ago
  >If you don't want to work crazy hours, don't take a job that makes you work crazy hours, or make it clear to your employer that you wont do that before starting your job. Why do you think people have this ability and choose not to use it? Do you think they're all too stupid to think of it?
  - kuzimoto 7y ago
    >Why do you think people have this ability and choose not to use it? I can speculate but I couldn't know everyone's reasons. Employment is a contract, and people are free to either terminate it and find a new job, or negotiate the terms on getting hired. There will be consequences, presumably you may not get paid as much, or get promoted over someone else but you can still work a livable wage. > Do you think they're all too stupid to think of it? I don't think people are too stupid, I'd guess maybe they feel peer pressure to do it if others around them are doing the same thing.

CaptainZapp 7y ago

Do you have a source to back that claim? Why would he need a source to back an opinion?

kuzimoto 7y ago
"That's the very definition" sounds a lot more like a statement of fact than an opinion. I want to know where it was defined, and by whom.