5 ms·

You’re not subsidizing minimum-wage companies. You’ve decided that workers should enjoy an arbitrarily high standard of living but are unwilling to shoulder the

by cltby 6y ago

You’re not subsidizing minimum-wage companies. You’ve decided that workers should enjoy an arbitrarily high standard of living but are unwilling to shoulder the full costs of providing it (e.g. through taxes). Instead, you went to the ballot box and kicked those costs to corporations. The minimum-wage companies are subsidizing you.

arcticbull 6y ago
A living wage for an individual with no children in King County, Washington is $16.09 per hour worked. If you pay less than that, the government via entitlement programs makes up the difference. That's corporate welfare, and this bill goes a long way to addressing that. [1] If employers do not pay enough that their employees require the use of zero entitlement programs, they are mooching off the state in the amount of the entitlement programs their employees consume. I'd be open to, instead of raising the minimum wage, having the state bill employers to recover the cost of entitlement programs they had to provide for their employees. [1] https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/53033 https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/53033
- cltby 6y ago
  There's plenty of fat in this budget. The hypothetical worker in your link might consider increasing his labor supply beyond eight hours a day. Maybe he could forego his biannual iPhone upgrade. He might even cut his consumption of high-dollar first world medical care. Now, I understand you think these are all things that, as a matter of decency, our citizens should have. That's great! Then pay for it, and stop saddling everyone else with the costs of your morality.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    Take it up with MIT, not me. I'm sure they'd love to hear your theories about how fridges aren't necessities in the winter :) I take it you're an expert in living wage calculation? For what it's worth when I reviewed their methodology, as I suggest you do, I didn't see a line-item for "biannual iPhone upgrade." [1] And re: medical care, I'm sure you know someone making $12/hr can't afford to set foot in a hospital in America. For a single-income household of 2 parents and a child, the threshold for Medicaid eligibility is $15/hr. As a taxpayer, I retort, stop saddling me with the bill for the employees time you're consuming but refusing to pay for. If their services are that important to you, I'm sure you can pay what it costs without forcing me to split it with you. As a fine upstanding participant in this nation's economy, I'm confident you'll find a way. Maybe forego that biannual iPhone upgrade ;) [1] https://livingwage.mit.edu/resources/Living-Wage-Users-Guide-Technical-Documentation-2020.pdf https://livingwage.mit.edu/resources/Living-Wage-Users-Guide...
    - throwaway201103 6y ago
      Sorry society doesn't get to declare an arbitrary "living wage" target for entitlement eligibility and then claim I'm mooching off society when I can't afford to pay their made-up number. If society wants to mandate a $16.09/hr wage, then it will have to accept that jobs that are not worth $16.09/hr will disappear, and we'll have more people with no income at all to deal with.
      - ddingus 6y ago
        Let them dissappear then. I am quite sure someone else will be willing to step up and get that work done. Can't afford often means unwilling to pay, not unable to pay. Where there is demand for that work, there is also strong incentive to make money getting that work done. Someone will. And they will do it differently, take a lower margin, bundle it with other work to bring the value up, increase their pricing, etc...
        nickpp 6y ago
        > Someone will. Yup. Robots. Can’t wait.
        ddingus 6y ago
        We are no where close to automating most basic labors. The hard truth is the investment is huge! And general automation, sufficient to replace basic labors on a meaningful scale is still in development. May happen some day. It will be a long while though. Plenty long enough for this discussion to remain relevant. Secondly, say we arrive at that point. What changes? People have costs to exist and be humans. I put this in another comment: if we truly do not pay those costs, people die and or do not show up for work. Lots of dead people is not helpful or desirable. So what do we expect them to do?
        nickpp 6y ago
        > We are no where close to automating most basic labors. Crap like this is giving us the motivation for finding solutions and getting closer. Just like the danger of starvation is giving people the motivation to get off their asses and get to work and improve themselves. We're pretty simple energy conservation machines otherwise. Give me a small stipend for weed, games and porn and I’d still be living in my parents basement.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > A living wage for an individual with no children in King County, Washington is $16.09 per hour worked. If you pay less than that, the government via entitlement programs makes up the difference. That isn't how a NIT/UBI works. There is no making up the difference, everyone gets the same amount from the government in all cases. Moreover, the frame you're using is that the employer owes the employee a living wage. It assumes that if the employer can't stay in business paying $16.09 then the employee will get the higher wage regardless. But if that alternative was available, why wouldn't they have taken the other, higher paying job to begin with? And if the alternative is instead unemployment, you are obviously doing no one any favors by prohibiting them from making some money rather than none. Meanwhile it doesn't take into account the cost differences inherent in different forms of employment. If you work across the street from where you live, you have no commuting expense. If you work 60 miles away, at $.59/mile you have >$70/day in commuting expense, equivalent to $8.85/hour in wages. After taxes. And you lose two hours a day to sitting in traffic. It would be totally rational for someone to prefer the job across the street for $7.50/hour to the one 60 miles away for $16.09/hour, but your position is that they should be prohibited from taking that job even though it would be better for both them and society.
- jeegsy 6y ago
  Provided of course that I as the taxpayer have some input in the decision to have 9 children
chillwaves 6y ago
> arbitrarily high standard of living The minimum wage is not much higher than the federal poverty level. > you went to the ballot box and kicked those costs to corporations. The minimum-wage companies are subsidizing you. Walmart and McDonald's are among the top employers of workers who receive government aid. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/walmart-and-mcdonalds-among-top-employers-of-medicaid-and-food-stamp-beneficiaries.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/walmart-and-mcdonalds-among-...
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  That doesn't mean that Walmart and McDonald's are the cause of those people's need for government aid. They are earning minumum wage because they have no skills of any value coming in to the job, and the jobs don't require any.
  - chillwaves 6y ago
    It does mean that working for minimum wage is enough to require government assistance, and maybe we should rethink that minimum.

by cltby 6y ago

arcticbull 6y ago

A living wage for an individual with no children in King County, Washington is $16.09 per hour worked. If you pay less than that, the government via entitlement programs makes up the difference. That's corporate welfare, and this bill goes a long way to addressing that. [1] If employers do not pay enough that their employees require the use of zero entitlement programs, they are mooching off the state in the amount of the entitlement programs their employees consume. I'd be open to, instead of raising the minimum wage, having the state bill employers to recover the cost of entitlement programs they had to provide for their employees. [1] https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/53033 https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/53033

cltby 6y ago
There's plenty of fat in this budget. The hypothetical worker in your link might consider increasing his labor supply beyond eight hours a day. Maybe he could forego his biannual iPhone upgrade. He might even cut his consumption of high-dollar first world medical care. Now, I understand you think these are all things that, as a matter of decency, our citizens should have. That's great! Then pay for it, and stop saddling everyone else with the costs of your morality.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Take it up with MIT, not me. I'm sure they'd love to hear your theories about how fridges aren't necessities in the winter :) I take it you're an expert in living wage calculation? For what it's worth when I reviewed their methodology, as I suggest you do, I didn't see a line-item for "biannual iPhone upgrade." [1] And re: medical care, I'm sure you know someone making $12/hr can't afford to set foot in a hospital in America. For a single-income household of 2 parents and a child, the threshold for Medicaid eligibility is $15/hr. As a taxpayer, I retort, stop saddling me with the bill for the employees time you're consuming but refusing to pay for. If their services are that important to you, I'm sure you can pay what it costs without forcing me to split it with you. As a fine upstanding participant in this nation's economy, I'm confident you'll find a way. Maybe forego that biannual iPhone upgrade ;) [1] https://livingwage.mit.edu/resources/Living-Wage-Users-Guide-Technical-Documentation-2020.pdf https://livingwage.mit.edu/resources/Living-Wage-Users-Guide...
  - throwaway201103 6y ago
    Sorry society doesn't get to declare an arbitrary "living wage" target for entitlement eligibility and then claim I'm mooching off society when I can't afford to pay their made-up number. If society wants to mandate a $16.09/hr wage, then it will have to accept that jobs that are not worth $16.09/hr will disappear, and we'll have more people with no income at all to deal with.
    - ddingus 6y ago
      Let them dissappear then. I am quite sure someone else will be willing to step up and get that work done. Can't afford often means unwilling to pay, not unable to pay. Where there is demand for that work, there is also strong incentive to make money getting that work done. Someone will. And they will do it differently, take a lower margin, bundle it with other work to bring the value up, increase their pricing, etc...
      - nickpp 6y ago
        > Someone will. Yup. Robots. Can’t wait.
        ddingus 6y ago
        We are no where close to automating most basic labors. The hard truth is the investment is huge! And general automation, sufficient to replace basic labors on a meaningful scale is still in development. May happen some day. It will be a long while though. Plenty long enough for this discussion to remain relevant. Secondly, say we arrive at that point. What changes? People have costs to exist and be humans. I put this in another comment: if we truly do not pay those costs, people die and or do not show up for work. Lots of dead people is not helpful or desirable. So what do we expect them to do?
        nickpp 6y ago
        > We are no where close to automating most basic labors. Crap like this is giving us the motivation for finding solutions and getting closer. Just like the danger of starvation is giving people the motivation to get off their asses and get to work and improve themselves. We're pretty simple energy conservation machines otherwise. Give me a small stipend for weed, games and porn and I’d still be living in my parents basement.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> A living wage for an individual with no children in King County, Washington is $16.09 per hour worked. If you pay less than that, the government via entitlement programs makes up the difference. That isn't how a NIT/UBI works. There is no making up the difference, everyone gets the same amount from the government in all cases. Moreover, the frame you're using is that the employer owes the employee a living wage. It assumes that if the employer can't stay in business paying $16.09 then the employee will get the higher wage regardless. But if that alternative was available, why wouldn't they have taken the other, higher paying job to begin with? And if the alternative is instead unemployment, you are obviously doing no one any favors by prohibiting them from making some money rather than none. Meanwhile it doesn't take into account the cost differences inherent in different forms of employment. If you work across the street from where you live, you have no commuting expense. If you work 60 miles away, at $.59/mile you have >$70/day in commuting expense, equivalent to $8.85/hour in wages. After taxes. And you lose two hours a day to sitting in traffic. It would be totally rational for someone to prefer the job across the street for $7.50/hour to the one 60 miles away for $16.09/hour, but your position is that they should be prohibited from taking that job even though it would be better for both them and society.
jeegsy 6y ago
Provided of course that I as the taxpayer have some input in the decision to have 9 children

chillwaves 6y ago

> arbitrarily high standard of living The minimum wage is not much higher than the federal poverty level. > you went to the ballot box and kicked those costs to corporations. The minimum-wage companies are subsidizing you. Walmart and McDonald's are among the top employers of workers who receive government aid. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/walmart-and-mcdonalds-among-top-employers-of-medicaid-and-food-stamp-beneficiaries.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/walmart-and-mcdonalds-among-...

throwaway201103 6y ago
That doesn't mean that Walmart and McDonald's are the cause of those people's need for government aid. They are earning minumum wage because they have no skills of any value coming in to the job, and the jobs don't require any.
- chillwaves 6y ago
  It does mean that working for minimum wage is enough to require government assistance, and maybe we should rethink that minimum.