2 ms·

I thought the primary argument against it was that the alternative is unemployment. You're implying the options are to pay the same person high or low wages. I

• tablespoon 5y ago
  > I thought the primary argument against it was that the alternative is unemployment. Which is utterly insane when you think about it. The current minimum wage is practically unlivable, and it's supposed to be a good thing for people to make even less just to box-check "employed"? At least if you're unemployed, it's theoretically possible to put your energies into learning something to get a better job, but impossible to do that if you're burning all your energy for little more than pocket money. The only people who'd gain from a lower minimum wage are employers, who'd have the opportunity to exploit cheaper labor.
  • unishark 5y ago
    Now you seem to be arguing for a complete set of welfare benefits comparable to whatever minimum wage is? Because a job is obviously more than a "box check". It's an income. Otherwise, anyone could turn their nose up at those soul-sucking low-wage jobs and choose that unemployment alternative willingly.