4 ms·
Frankly I find it perfectly acceptable that if someone is making $X from their job, and the government says the minimum amount to survive per month is $Y and is
by res0nat0r 5y ago
Frankly I find it perfectly acceptable that if someone is making $X from their job, and the government says the minimum amount to survive per month is $Y and is going to pay you that amount, and $Y > $X, then why would I return to work if my job is paying me starvation wages?
- XorNot 5y agoThe other thing is this is not new in the US, COVID-19 just dragged it into sharp focus. It is a standard employment practice at Walmart to walk their staff through signing up for food stamps - which they qualify for because Walmart doesn't pay them a living wage. Walmart costs you the tax payer more money every time they open a store.
- jandrewrogers 5y agoI don't understand this line of reasoning. If someone lacks the skills to produce enough value to earn a living wage then the taxpayer is going to be paying for them regardless. At least with the job that cost is partially offset by productive employment and there is an opportunity to develop skills so that they can earn a living wage in the future.
- res0nat0r 5y agoThey're only not earning enough to make a living wage because companies which are making billions of dollars a year in profit can get away with not being forced to pay a living wage.
- XorNot 5y agoThe government has no responsibility, nor should it, to subsidize your business. If you can't pay someone a living wage, then you shouldn't be in business.
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoShould a high schooler working part time for gas money be paid a living wage? If the answer is yes, most jobs for high schoolers will disappear.
- res0nat0r 5y agoYes. Most of these so called “low skill” jobs are staffed by adults. There’s a reason why fast food and retail are open during school hours.
- XorNot 5y agoYes. How is this even a question? You don't get to low-ball your employees because of their age or circumstance. If they work the hours, they get paid a living wage for those hours. The time out from that high schoolers life is not valueless. If the employer wants to swear up and down the work is "unskilled" then they can pay everyone the unskilled labor rate which should still be a living wage. The high schooler working part time isn't doing so because it's fun, they're doing it most likely because their family is not wealthy and it's helping put food on the table or pay bills or buy textbooks.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago> You don't get to low-ball your employees because of their age or circumstance. Correct. You pay your employees according to the value they produce. And if they don't yet have the skills to produce much value, then either you can't pay them much, or you can't hire them at all. Which is better? I specifically chose high schoolers because they usually aren't trying to fully support themselves financially, and so most living wage arguments don't apply.
- res0nat0r 5y agoIt's still amazing that folks here in the USA somehow justify that paying starvation wages or not raising the minimum wage for 20 years is somehow good. If a company can't pay a minimum amount for someone to live, then that job shouldn't exist. This has been raised in parts of the country, and in countries overseas and the economy hasn't collapsed.
- sundaeofshock 5y agoWalmart’s profit is generated by the workers. Why should my taxes be used to subsidize worker exploitation by the Walton heirs?