5 ms·

Here's a counter-argument: if people are taking jobs that don't cover their cost of living, and the government is having to step in to subsidize them, then that

Here's a counter-argument: if people are taking jobs that don't cover their cost of living, and the government is having to step in to subsidize them, then that's effectively a subsidy from the government to the company's bottom line. In general, we Americans believe in the free market, but we also believe that we need limits on what people can legally contract for. For example, we don't let people sell organs. We don't let people sell themselves into slavery. We don't let people put their pre-teen children to work. And we do indeed have a minimum wage. Do you feel like we should abolish the minimum wage altogether, or just that it shouldn't be $15/hour. If so, why?

lotsofpulp 7y ago
Hence a universal basic income.
scarface74 7y ago
It’s not the role of every job to provide a livable income. How many people on HN wouldn’t have a job at all if their company wasn’t subsidized by VCs? There was an article posted here a few months ago that the average 7/11 owner makes $35K a year and that’s with them putting in 60+ hour weeks. Most small business owners aren’t getting rich. Actually, I wouldn’t be completely opposed to abolishing the minimum wage and having a universal basic income.
- taurath 7y ago
  > It’s not the role of every job to provide a livable income. It’s the role of the economy for someone to get a livable income if that’s what they’re seeking. If it’s not working then it needs a nudge.
  - throw_away_456 7y ago
    Sure, but there are ways to do this that aren't forcing every single job in said economy to provide that type of income.
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    What standard of living do you consider "livable" and what percentage of the 7.7 Billion people on the planet actually live at that standard? The "living wage" thing is a marketing weasel phrase. It's intentionally non-specific and encourages the listener to fill in their own idea of what kind of lifestyle a "living wage" entails. I would encourage everyone to ignore "living wage" marketing weasel-speak and only listen to concrete, specific goals.
    - taurath 7y ago
      Try at the very minimum matching to inflation, and adjusting the current wage to what it would be if it were. Then all you have to decide is whether the minimum wage should’ve been a thing in the first place.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        The “living wage” would be different for someone with no dependents and no health problems than someone who has health problems and/or kids.
        Consultant32452 7y ago
        When I read "living wage" I parse it very literally. It sounds like something close to "capable of purchasing just enough food calories for one person to live." It certainly would not afford you luxuries like having children. I'm sure that's not what most people are intending to communicate, but I think that's a good starting point to demonstrate how meaningless the phrase "living wage" really is.
        scarface74 7y ago
        Well, you can buy a lot of food calories cheaply from McDonalds.... http://freakonomics.com/2013/03/21/the-most-bountiful-food-in-human-history/ http://freakonomics.com/2013/03/21/the-most-bountiful-food-i...
      - deleted 7y ago
  - scarface74 7y ago
    So should we force companies to pay a “livable income” for the teenager staying at home? The couple with two small kids and the mom staying at home to raise them? The single mom who has to raise three or four kids on her own? The single person in the story who needs expensive medical care to stay alive?
    - nabeards 7y ago
      Sure, why not? There’s a ridiculous amount of money out there, but people are squabbling over pennies.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        So now when you apply for a job they should base your pay on your household situation? If one person is single and the other is a single mom with three kids, the company should pay more? Should they also get paid more if one has a medical condition and the other doesn’t?
        nabeards 7y ago
        Again, why not?
    - taurath 7y ago
      Yes. Because people who need jobs to live shouldn’t have to suffer for those people you mentioned. All those people you mentioned it’s a fucking optional thing - don’t optimize for the optional.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        So it’s “optional” for the single mom who was married and whose husband left/died? Is it “optional” in any circumstance for the kids?
        taurath 7y ago
        She should get a living wage. The kids should take less hours so they have more time to do things other than being a wage slave. Everyone who works should get a living wage. If everyone has a living wage, the businesses will do better because people will have more money to spend. That’s the point of investment. Our economy is built off of the consumer, who has been stagnating for decades. We could be doing far better with a stronger middle class.
- Fomite 7y ago
  "How many people on HN wouldn’t have a job at all if their company wasn’t subsidized by VCs?" VCs aren't taxpayers. We're not getting equity or an upside in McDonalds paying below poverty wages.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Well, seeing that a lot of public pensions invest in both private equity and public stocks, what’s the difference? Your government is still taking the same amount of risk. Let me tell you about a personal anecdote: My mom retired from teaching probably about 15 years ago. She was approached a year later about working for a program with the school system for at risk kids. It was based on a federal government grant. When she did the math, she would only be able to work about 10 or 15 hours a week at the rate they agreed to pay her and it not affect her teacher’s pension. She volunteered to take a pay cut - that was under $15 an hour - so she could work more hours and actually help the students. Should she not be allowed to voluntarily work for less? My own wife when we met was working a job that allowed her to support herself and her (now our) two kids and live in one of the best school districts in the area. She voluntarily took a lower paying and lower stress job that again was less than $15 an hour so she could be on the school schedule. On a less anecdotal level, there are freelancers in California who are complaining that the government “stepping in” to “help” Uber drivers has made it harder for them to stay freelancers. Jason Snell the former editor of MacWorld who gave up his job to go freelance said the law made it more complicated for him. I mentioned before that the average 7/11 owner makes $35K a year and puts in 60+ hour weeks. What do you think is going to happen if he is forced to pay $15 an hour? Have you seen the balance sheet of the average small business? Not everyone gets to be subsidized by Big Daddy VC while losing millions of dollars. Anytime you have government unnecessarily involved in price fixing you get unintended consequences.
- sterileopinions 7y ago
  >How many people on HN wouldn’t have a job at all if their company wasn’t subsidized by VCs? I can't tell if this is satire or not.

lotsofpulp 7y ago

Hence a universal basic income.

scarface74 7y ago

It’s not the role of every job to provide a livable income. How many people on HN wouldn’t have a job at all if their company wasn’t subsidized by VCs? There was an article posted here a few months ago that the average 7/11 owner makes $35K a year and that’s with them putting in 60+ hour weeks. Most small business owners aren’t getting rich. Actually, I wouldn’t be completely opposed to abolishing the minimum wage and having a universal basic income.

taurath 7y ago
> It’s not the role of every job to provide a livable income. It’s the role of the economy for someone to get a livable income if that’s what they’re seeking. If it’s not working then it needs a nudge.
- throw_away_456 7y ago
  Sure, but there are ways to do this that aren't forcing every single job in said economy to provide that type of income.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  What standard of living do you consider "livable" and what percentage of the 7.7 Billion people on the planet actually live at that standard? The "living wage" thing is a marketing weasel phrase. It's intentionally non-specific and encourages the listener to fill in their own idea of what kind of lifestyle a "living wage" entails. I would encourage everyone to ignore "living wage" marketing weasel-speak and only listen to concrete, specific goals.
  - taurath 7y ago
    Try at the very minimum matching to inflation, and adjusting the current wage to what it would be if it were. Then all you have to decide is whether the minimum wage should’ve been a thing in the first place.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      The “living wage” would be different for someone with no dependents and no health problems than someone who has health problems and/or kids.
      - Consultant32452 7y ago
        When I read "living wage" I parse it very literally. It sounds like something close to "capable of purchasing just enough food calories for one person to live." It certainly would not afford you luxuries like having children. I'm sure that's not what most people are intending to communicate, but I think that's a good starting point to demonstrate how meaningless the phrase "living wage" really is.
        scarface74 7y ago
        Well, you can buy a lot of food calories cheaply from McDonalds.... http://freakonomics.com/2013/03/21/the-most-bountiful-food-in-human-history/ http://freakonomics.com/2013/03/21/the-most-bountiful-food-i...
    - deleted 7y ago
- scarface74 7y ago
  So should we force companies to pay a “livable income” for the teenager staying at home? The couple with two small kids and the mom staying at home to raise them? The single mom who has to raise three or four kids on her own? The single person in the story who needs expensive medical care to stay alive?
  - nabeards 7y ago
    Sure, why not? There’s a ridiculous amount of money out there, but people are squabbling over pennies.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      So now when you apply for a job they should base your pay on your household situation? If one person is single and the other is a single mom with three kids, the company should pay more? Should they also get paid more if one has a medical condition and the other doesn’t?
      - nabeards 7y ago
        Again, why not?
  - taurath 7y ago
    Yes. Because people who need jobs to live shouldn’t have to suffer for those people you mentioned. All those people you mentioned it’s a fucking optional thing - don’t optimize for the optional.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      So it’s “optional” for the single mom who was married and whose husband left/died? Is it “optional” in any circumstance for the kids?
      - taurath 7y ago
        She should get a living wage. The kids should take less hours so they have more time to do things other than being a wage slave. Everyone who works should get a living wage. If everyone has a living wage, the businesses will do better because people will have more money to spend. That’s the point of investment. Our economy is built off of the consumer, who has been stagnating for decades. We could be doing far better with a stronger middle class.
Fomite 7y ago
"How many people on HN wouldn’t have a job at all if their company wasn’t subsidized by VCs?" VCs aren't taxpayers. We're not getting equity or an upside in McDonalds paying below poverty wages.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Well, seeing that a lot of public pensions invest in both private equity and public stocks, what’s the difference? Your government is still taking the same amount of risk. Let me tell you about a personal anecdote: My mom retired from teaching probably about 15 years ago. She was approached a year later about working for a program with the school system for at risk kids. It was based on a federal government grant. When she did the math, she would only be able to work about 10 or 15 hours a week at the rate they agreed to pay her and it not affect her teacher’s pension. She volunteered to take a pay cut - that was under $15 an hour - so she could work more hours and actually help the students. Should she not be allowed to voluntarily work for less? My own wife when we met was working a job that allowed her to support herself and her (now our) two kids and live in one of the best school districts in the area. She voluntarily took a lower paying and lower stress job that again was less than $15 an hour so she could be on the school schedule. On a less anecdotal level, there are freelancers in California who are complaining that the government “stepping in” to “help” Uber drivers has made it harder for them to stay freelancers. Jason Snell the former editor of MacWorld who gave up his job to go freelance said the law made it more complicated for him. I mentioned before that the average 7/11 owner makes $35K a year and puts in 60+ hour weeks. What do you think is going to happen if he is forced to pay $15 an hour? Have you seen the balance sheet of the average small business? Not everyone gets to be subsidized by Big Daddy VC while losing millions of dollars. Anytime you have government unnecessarily involved in price fixing you get unintended consequences.
sterileopinions 7y ago
>How many people on HN wouldn’t have a job at all if their company wasn’t subsidized by VCs? I can't tell if this is satire or not.