10 ms·

Additionally, companies do not have a right to exist. If your business needs to pay minimum wage, profits are thin, and employees are quitting to find something

by zenonu 5y ago

Additionally, companies do not have a right to exist. If your business needs to pay minimum wage, profits are thin, and employees are quitting to find something better, it probably shouldn't be a thing any more. There isn't a labor shortage - your business isn't providing enough value for the labor it requires.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
newbamboo 5y ago
A world without musicians? No thanks.
- emptysongglass 5y ago
  You can pay musicians fairly by streaming and buying through other channels like Bandcamp and resonate.is, which if we all did it would make the profession far more viable.
- rybosworld 5y ago
  That is... quite a leap
- JKCalhoun 5y ago
  A world without corporate musicians? A-OK. I'm not clear why there would be no musicians if it requires minimum wage, razor thin profit margins, etc.
- aaomidi 5y ago
  Music and art existed before currency was a thing. It will continue to exist as long as humans exis.
- Broken_Hippo 5y ago
  Most musicians and artist make nothing from their music and art, yet folks are still making it.
ahallock 5y ago
I agree, except why use the word "right"? There is no such right for businesses (although bailouts are a thing...).
- rbanffy 5y ago
  Bailouts could be replaced by direct state acquisition of the business (at cost), IF it provides a benefit to society or its demise would create an irreparable loss.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - aaomidi 5y ago
    And this is how it should be because bailouts are done with our money, which means the public need to have some level of control over them afterwards.
  - landemva 5y ago
    Bankrupty process is well understood. Let someone else pick up their physical assets at a good price and build back better.
fundad 5y ago
Exactly. A lot of businesses that survived long enough to hire now were saved by generous PPP money. Every $ x billion in PPP could be attributed to .y% of inflation but we don’t talk about capital the way we talk about workers.
m4nu3l 5y ago
I agree with the statement except for the "minimum wage" part - I assume you mean the legal minimum wage. Companies should have no right to exist as much as people should have no right to a government imposed minimum wage. On a practical level a minimum wage is either not effective (so broadly set to what the market is paying already o just above that) or it will inevitably decrease job offer. On a philosophical level, adults should be free to choose what to do with their body and mind - as long as it has no negative effect on third parties.
- xyzzy123 5y ago
  Employers who create full time positions that don't pay enough for people to live on create a social burden that the rest of society has to deal with. That's the negative externality.
  - sershe 5y ago
    They don't really create this externality, though. A person taking this job apparently cannot get a better paying job. With a higher minimum wage in otherwise free market, no jobs for that person would exist, so the social burden would exist just the same. The situation is diametrically opposite - minimum wage forces businesses to engage in welfare. Those who have enough margins to engage in welfare might do it; the others may disappear with the jobs, or cut the jobs by reducing service/automating/outsourcing (again leading to the same "social burden" existing).
  - m4nu3l 5y ago
    Hum, I see your point, but I disagree for two reasons. AFAIK most jobs that would pay under what's enough to live on are entry level jobs usually carried out part-time by students. Denying them such job is removing them that source of income - and in case of jobs that require experience denying them a chance to gain that experience. This means you are not reducing any social externality. You are just shifting those externalities to a different set of people. I'm also wary of "daling with" this kind of social externalities even if it was possible. If we apply your argument to drugs than the conclusions would be that alcohol and any other drug should be made illegal because it has a social cost. But I believe people still have the right to do whatever they want with their body and mind as long as there is no direct externality, and I'd rather live with any indirect externality that is the result of that.

by zenonu 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

newbamboo 5y ago

A world without musicians? No thanks.

emptysongglass 5y ago
You can pay musicians fairly by streaming and buying through other channels like Bandcamp and resonate.is, which if we all did it would make the profession far more viable.
rybosworld 5y ago
That is... quite a leap
JKCalhoun 5y ago
A world without corporate musicians? A-OK. I'm not clear why there would be no musicians if it requires minimum wage, razor thin profit margins, etc.
aaomidi 5y ago
Music and art existed before currency was a thing. It will continue to exist as long as humans exis.
Broken_Hippo 5y ago
Most musicians and artist make nothing from their music and art, yet folks are still making it.

ahallock 5y ago

I agree, except why use the word "right"? There is no such right for businesses (although bailouts are a thing...).

rbanffy 5y ago
Bailouts could be replaced by direct state acquisition of the business (at cost), IF it provides a benefit to society or its demise would create an irreparable loss.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- aaomidi 5y ago
  And this is how it should be because bailouts are done with our money, which means the public need to have some level of control over them afterwards.
- landemva 5y ago
  Bankrupty process is well understood. Let someone else pick up their physical assets at a good price and build back better.

fundad 5y ago

Exactly. A lot of businesses that survived long enough to hire now were saved by generous PPP money. Every $ x billion in PPP could be attributed to .y% of inflation but we don’t talk about capital the way we talk about workers.

m4nu3l 5y ago

I agree with the statement except for the "minimum wage" part - I assume you mean the legal minimum wage. Companies should have no right to exist as much as people should have no right to a government imposed minimum wage. On a practical level a minimum wage is either not effective (so broadly set to what the market is paying already o just above that) or it will inevitably decrease job offer. On a philosophical level, adults should be free to choose what to do with their body and mind - as long as it has no negative effect on third parties.

xyzzy123 5y ago
Employers who create full time positions that don't pay enough for people to live on create a social burden that the rest of society has to deal with. That's the negative externality.
- sershe 5y ago
  They don't really create this externality, though. A person taking this job apparently cannot get a better paying job. With a higher minimum wage in otherwise free market, no jobs for that person would exist, so the social burden would exist just the same. The situation is diametrically opposite - minimum wage forces businesses to engage in welfare. Those who have enough margins to engage in welfare might do it; the others may disappear with the jobs, or cut the jobs by reducing service/automating/outsourcing (again leading to the same "social burden" existing).
- m4nu3l 5y ago
  Hum, I see your point, but I disagree for two reasons. AFAIK most jobs that would pay under what's enough to live on are entry level jobs usually carried out part-time by students. Denying them such job is removing them that source of income - and in case of jobs that require experience denying them a chance to gain that experience. This means you are not reducing any social externality. You are just shifting those externalities to a different set of people. I'm also wary of "daling with" this kind of social externalities even if it was possible. If we apply your argument to drugs than the conclusions would be that alcohol and any other drug should be made illegal because it has a social cost. But I believe people still have the right to do whatever they want with their body and mind as long as there is no direct externality, and I'd rather live with any indirect externality that is the result of that.