4 ms·

No need to reduce minimum wage if we had a decent safety net. In reality, we do. Look how many people are "on disability", many of them could work. They are oft

No need to reduce minimum wage if we had a decent safety net. In reality, we do. Look how many people are "on disability", many of them could work. They are often trapped in physical labor because of the area the live, or lack of education. They are no longer able to perform this physical labor, so we pay them.

notch656a 5y ago
Even with a safety net, some people may still choose to enter into labor at a low rate to start climbing the career ladder. A system with a safety-net could offer some phase-out so that working is at least somewhat higher revenue than not working. That is to say, there's no requirement that safety nets must have accompanying minimum wage. In any case, it would be wise to align incentives so that an individual employing their full capacities is better for them than not.
- pnutjam 5y ago
  Tell me you don't read history without telling my you don't read history. The minimum wage is necessary because of the way labor is viewed in America. We subsidize the wealthy enough without letting them destroy the working class (any more then they already are).
  - notch656a 5y ago
    What do you mean by subsidizing the wealthy? Surely you don't view transfer payments that are designed to aid the poor as something that subsidize the wealthy. If those payments subsidize the wealthy and not the poor, we should eliminate them. I'm definitely not in favor of subsidies that only benefit the wealthy. Minimum wage benefits some people who would otherwise earn below minimum wage, at the expense of many more you can't see (because they're exclusively welfare instead) that can't get a job because the value they're able to add doesn't meet minimum wage. Unfortunately for these people their skills and physical fitness may atrophy while they're sidelined exclusively welfare rather than on the horse and developing themselves and their productive capacities. They're the victims of minimum wage, cast aside so some winners can MAYBE make a little more money. If you believe supporting the working poor's survival is a 'subsidy' to the wealthy then are you arguing for eliminating of welfare for anyone working?
    - pnutjam 5y ago
      Paying low wages subsidizes the wealthy. Work should pay enough to live on. When is doesn't, we make up the difference with charity or a social safety net. Here comes the old trope that everyone needs employment to be happy. We can afford to establish a floor and take care of people below it. There's a million ways they can enjoy their life without an "occupation"they get paid to do.
      - notch656a 5y ago
        >Paying low wages subsidizes the wealthy. Only if they're only able to pay low wages because of welfare making up the difference between what a person would actually work for (without welfare) and what they're currently paying. You seem to be in favor of welfare in at least some circumstances, so your simultaneous opposition to it is rather confusing. If you are against us making up the difference, then you're against welfare. You're going to have to make up your mind here, do you want to risk 'subsidizing the wealthy' (indirectly while you subsidize the poor) to help some poor, or do you want to really stck it to the poors by eliminating this welfare so that the wealthy can't gain whatever perceived benefits you see by the working poor being given aid. Keep in mind subsidizing the wealthy is really nonsensical statement here once you realize the middle and upper class are the ones paying for these tranfer payments to the poorer amongst us anyway. >Work should pay enough to live on. When is doesn't, we make up the difference with charity or a social safety net. You can have charity or social safety net while simultaneously not having minimum wage. Again, this is why I'm in favor of structuring aid so that employing a person's full capacities is the highest revenue option for them. That is, gradually phasing out as people earn more. I don't see a 'trap' where you HAVE to generate at least minimum wage worth of value or else you're stuck with your skills and fitness possibly atrophying as a good soluton. I also don't think you can will your way into every 'work' being profitable enough to ensure the survival of everyones unique living situation ( ex: a single mom with diabetes needs significantly more resources than a healthy 20 year old that's happy living in a tent in the woods ). You wouldn't outlaw the healthy 20 year old's job just because it doesn't generate enough for the single mom; and maybe the 20 year old is gaining skills at work to let him earn enough to someday fall in love with and marry the single mom and help take care of the family. > Here comes the old trope that everyone needs employment to be happy. No but many people are happier if they're able to start putting themselves more and more in a position where they survive from their own wits and abilities rather than handouts. I just want people who are unhireable at current minimimum wage to have the OPTION to work at the best wage they can negotiate. We shouldn't resort to the old trop the poorest among us are unproud people who just want to suck the government teet. > We can afford to establish a floor and take care of people below it. Again, you can establish a floor while simultaneously allowing people to gradually escape this floor rather than a winner-take-all scenario where those who benefit from minimum wage snuff out those who can't make the cut. Previously you made this floor sound like a 'subsidy to the wealthy' so I really wish you would make up your mind here.

notch656a 5y ago

Even with a safety net, some people may still choose to enter into labor at a low rate to start climbing the career ladder. A system with a safety-net could offer some phase-out so that working is at least somewhat higher revenue than not working. That is to say, there's no requirement that safety nets must have accompanying minimum wage. In any case, it would be wise to align incentives so that an individual employing their full capacities is better for them than not.

pnutjam 5y ago
Tell me you don't read history without telling my you don't read history. The minimum wage is necessary because of the way labor is viewed in America. We subsidize the wealthy enough without letting them destroy the working class (any more then they already are).
- notch656a 5y ago
  What do you mean by subsidizing the wealthy? Surely you don't view transfer payments that are designed to aid the poor as something that subsidize the wealthy. If those payments subsidize the wealthy and not the poor, we should eliminate them. I'm definitely not in favor of subsidies that only benefit the wealthy. Minimum wage benefits some people who would otherwise earn below minimum wage, at the expense of many more you can't see (because they're exclusively welfare instead) that can't get a job because the value they're able to add doesn't meet minimum wage. Unfortunately for these people their skills and physical fitness may atrophy while they're sidelined exclusively welfare rather than on the horse and developing themselves and their productive capacities. They're the victims of minimum wage, cast aside so some winners can MAYBE make a little more money. If you believe supporting the working poor's survival is a 'subsidy' to the wealthy then are you arguing for eliminating of welfare for anyone working?
  - pnutjam 5y ago
    Paying low wages subsidizes the wealthy. Work should pay enough to live on. When is doesn't, we make up the difference with charity or a social safety net. Here comes the old trope that everyone needs employment to be happy. We can afford to establish a floor and take care of people below it. There's a million ways they can enjoy their life without an "occupation"they get paid to do.
    - notch656a 5y ago
      >Paying low wages subsidizes the wealthy. Only if they're only able to pay low wages because of welfare making up the difference between what a person would actually work for (without welfare) and what they're currently paying. You seem to be in favor of welfare in at least some circumstances, so your simultaneous opposition to it is rather confusing. If you are against us making up the difference, then you're against welfare. You're going to have to make up your mind here, do you want to risk 'subsidizing the wealthy' (indirectly while you subsidize the poor) to help some poor, or do you want to really stck it to the poors by eliminating this welfare so that the wealthy can't gain whatever perceived benefits you see by the working poor being given aid. Keep in mind subsidizing the wealthy is really nonsensical statement here once you realize the middle and upper class are the ones paying for these tranfer payments to the poorer amongst us anyway. >Work should pay enough to live on. When is doesn't, we make up the difference with charity or a social safety net. You can have charity or social safety net while simultaneously not having minimum wage. Again, this is why I'm in favor of structuring aid so that employing a person's full capacities is the highest revenue option for them. That is, gradually phasing out as people earn more. I don't see a 'trap' where you HAVE to generate at least minimum wage worth of value or else you're stuck with your skills and fitness possibly atrophying as a good soluton. I also don't think you can will your way into every 'work' being profitable enough to ensure the survival of everyones unique living situation ( ex: a single mom with diabetes needs significantly more resources than a healthy 20 year old that's happy living in a tent in the woods ). You wouldn't outlaw the healthy 20 year old's job just because it doesn't generate enough for the single mom; and maybe the 20 year old is gaining skills at work to let him earn enough to someday fall in love with and marry the single mom and help take care of the family. > Here comes the old trope that everyone needs employment to be happy. No but many people are happier if they're able to start putting themselves more and more in a position where they survive from their own wits and abilities rather than handouts. I just want people who are unhireable at current minimimum wage to have the OPTION to work at the best wage they can negotiate. We shouldn't resort to the old trop the poorest among us are unproud people who just want to suck the government teet. > We can afford to establish a floor and take care of people below it. Again, you can establish a floor while simultaneously allowing people to gradually escape this floor rather than a winner-take-all scenario where those who benefit from minimum wage snuff out those who can't make the cut. Previously you made this floor sound like a 'subsidy to the wealthy' so I really wish you would make up your mind here.