3 ms·

I 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

I 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 6y ago
They'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 6y ago
The 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 6y ago
  Should 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 6y ago
    Yes. 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 6y ago
    Yes. 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 6y 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 6y ago
        It'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.
      - XorNot 6y ago
        If you are posting one single dollar of profit as a business owner, while employing someone on so little pay they qualify for income based government assistance, then you are stealing from me, the tax payer. Because that means you can afford to pay that employee more, and instead are pocketing the difference. In fact, if any employee is on an income-based form of government assistance to provide them a living wage, and any other employee is being paid more then that, then you are still stealing from me because the business is fully capable of supporting these people (who are apparently necessary because they are being employed) and instead using my money to subsidize yourself. If a job produces so little value that it doesn't justify a living wage, then I don't want anyone doing it because we've just established that even the experience or expertise which might develop from it is not worth anything. My taxes are to support my fellow citizens, not keep worthless jobs and worthless businesses in existence.
sundaeofshock 6y ago
Walmart’s profit is generated by the workers. Why should my taxes be used to subsidize worker exploitation by the Walton heirs?

res0nat0r 6y ago

They'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 6y ago

The 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 6y ago
Should 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 6y ago
  Yes. 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 6y ago
  Yes. 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 6y 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 6y ago
      It'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.
    - XorNot 6y ago
      If you are posting one single dollar of profit as a business owner, while employing someone on so little pay they qualify for income based government assistance, then you are stealing from me, the tax payer. Because that means you can afford to pay that employee more, and instead are pocketing the difference. In fact, if any employee is on an income-based form of government assistance to provide them a living wage, and any other employee is being paid more then that, then you are still stealing from me because the business is fully capable of supporting these people (who are apparently necessary because they are being employed) and instead using my money to subsidize yourself. If a job produces so little value that it doesn't justify a living wage, then I don't want anyone doing it because we've just established that even the experience or expertise which might develop from it is not worth anything. My taxes are to support my fellow citizens, not keep worthless jobs and worthless businesses in existence.

sundaeofshock 6y ago

Walmart’s profit is generated by the workers. Why should my taxes be used to subsidize worker exploitation by the Walton heirs?