4 ms·

Pre-covid businesses which paid borderline wages are going to find it really difficult to compete with the government. Basically, you have an administration 's

Pre-covid businesses which paid borderline wages are going to find it really difficult to compete with the government. Basically, you have an administration 'silently' waging war of certain types of business or jobs without needing to pass controversial legislation for things like a minimum wage increase or universal income. If it feel subversive, it is. But the cost of controversy these days causes people to find alternative options. It is now possible to make 130% to 200% your pre-covid salary/wage by being on unemployment. [0] It is generally human nature to do as little as possible to survive. In this case you don't have to do anything to survive. Why would you go look for a job. This will put large swaths of businesses who could stay afloat pre-covid and were forced to close due to covid to not be able to open their doors again. [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/09/it-pays-to-stay-unemployed-that-might-be-a-good-thing.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/09/it-pays-to-stay-unemployed-t...

treve 5y ago
This is a good thing. Businesses that rely on paying people salaries that keep them under the poverty line have no right to exist. Your business is exploitative and doesn't deserve to survive.
- luckylion 5y ago
  What do you do with people who don't have any skills that are worth more money? Do you just let the government take care of them perpetually?
  - Avshalom 5y ago
    Yes. We already do that. Many of my coworkers at Target are on medicaid and SNAP and get child care assistance and they will be, perpetually (well not so much the child care part). We just also make them work until they're 70+ anyway.
    - luckylion 5y ago
      > We just also make them work until they're 70+ anyway. Or in other words: we make them work. If we didn't we'd still need someone to do the work, only it wouldn't be your current coworkers. And we'd have to tax that person severely, so we have enough money to fund the early retirement of your coworkers. I'm not sure that person will be happy.
cratermoon 5y ago
That's a terrible take. The government is not "waging war" on businesses. Businesses that were (are) paying starvation wages simply socialize the costs of doing business. When Amazon's warehouse workers and Wal*Mart retail employees are also collecting SNAP benefits, their employers are getting all the benefits of low wages but – because they don't pay their fair share of taxes – the employers are avoiding the externalities. See "Cheap: This High Cost of Discount Culture"
- kokanator 5y ago
  Note I didn't say whether it was good or bad. These are real things that are occurring. The government has a long history of subsidizing businesses. Think seasonal businesses that 'lay off' their workforce to collect unemployment until the season opens again. Sometimes we believe these subsidies are good other times we don't. Do I believe companies as large as Amazon and Walmart should be subsidized? Hardly. Do I think small businesses of all sort could use a break here and there when faced with the subsidized giants? Absolutely. Try to go to your local hardware store, it doesn't exist any more. How about the corner grocery, gone. These guys needed a break but we put the screws to them and let the Giant more 'efficient' businesses off the hook.

treve 5y ago

This is a good thing. Businesses that rely on paying people salaries that keep them under the poverty line have no right to exist. Your business is exploitative and doesn't deserve to survive.

luckylion 5y ago
What do you do with people who don't have any skills that are worth more money? Do you just let the government take care of them perpetually?
- Avshalom 5y ago
  Yes. We already do that. Many of my coworkers at Target are on medicaid and SNAP and get child care assistance and they will be, perpetually (well not so much the child care part). We just also make them work until they're 70+ anyway.
  - luckylion 5y ago
    > We just also make them work until they're 70+ anyway. Or in other words: we make them work. If we didn't we'd still need someone to do the work, only it wouldn't be your current coworkers. And we'd have to tax that person severely, so we have enough money to fund the early retirement of your coworkers. I'm not sure that person will be happy.

cratermoon 5y ago

That's a terrible take. The government is not "waging war" on businesses. Businesses that were (are) paying starvation wages simply socialize the costs of doing business. When Amazon's warehouse workers and Wal*Mart retail employees are also collecting SNAP benefits, their employers are getting all the benefits of low wages but – because they don't pay their fair share of taxes – the employers are avoiding the externalities. See "Cheap: This High Cost of Discount Culture"

kokanator 5y ago
Note I didn't say whether it was good or bad. These are real things that are occurring. The government has a long history of subsidizing businesses. Think seasonal businesses that 'lay off' their workforce to collect unemployment until the season opens again. Sometimes we believe these subsidies are good other times we don't. Do I believe companies as large as Amazon and Walmart should be subsidized? Hardly. Do I think small businesses of all sort could use a break here and there when faced with the subsidized giants? Absolutely. Try to go to your local hardware store, it doesn't exist any more. How about the corner grocery, gone. These guys needed a break but we put the screws to them and let the Giant more 'efficient' businesses off the hook.