3 ms·

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. Her

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.
- pnutjam 5y ago
  I'm either arguing with an 11 year old or someone willfully ignorant. >so your simultaneous opposition to it is rather confusing. No opposition to welfare. It should be more generous and more readily avaliable. >you realize the middle and upper class are the ones paying for these tranfer payments to the poorer amongst us anyway. Yes, note the and, if we were actually taxing the wealthy; it would be less of a subsidy. Graduated benefits do not conflict with a minimum wage. Why do you believe all work must be paid? The simple fact is that it takes a minimum amount to live in our Society. Jobs should pay that. I haven't seen a single coherent argument about sub minimum wage work, aside from; "It might make give someone the ability to learn a trade." This is simultaneously ignorant and short-sighted. How would anyone benefit from learning a trade where people are working for a pittance to "learn" how to do the trade? They'll be shuffled out as soon as they start to earn too much. There are also multiple ways to learn trades without worrying about minimum wage, it's just a silly red-herring. If there were a world where hiring people to learn well paying jobs made sense, you'd see scholarships or free programs setup to do this. Where are they? It doesn't make sense, from a corporate perspective. Sub-minimum wage would only ever exploit.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    >I'm either arguing with an 11 year old or someone willfully ignorant. Please refrain from these sort of personal character attacks, they don't lead to fruitful discussion and they suggest a weak argument. >No opposition to welfare. It should be more generous and more readily available. Then you really don't have any problem with subsidizing those who aren't earning enough to cover a living. Which makes me confused again by your rhetoric about "subsidies to the rich." >Why do you believe all work must be paid? If a worker and the employer agree upon a wage, I see no reason for the employee not to be paid. >The simple fact is that it takes a minimum amount to live in our Society. That number depends on a number of unique individual factors. You can't broadly decide what an individual requires. When I was young and living in the woods, it only cost me about $300/mo to survive and I was very happy to do odd day labor for shit wages which fully provided for my lifestyle. A single mom with diabetes may need at least $2k / mo to stay out of 'poverty', and quite possibly more than that. You wouldn't outlaw the services I provided when I was young to people that kept me alive, just because someone else may need more than me. >How would anyone benefit from learning a trade where people are working for a pittance to "learn" how to do the trade? You don't see the benefit of learning a trade and progressively being paid more while doing so? Being paid _something_ is better than nothing, unless of course you're in the sort of welfare trap that cuts off some of your aid in a way that makes you worse off for working. >They'll be shuffled out as soon as they start to earn too much. If you're shuffled out of a position, then you now have more bargaining power for the next one if you have more skills. Also it would be dumb to fire someone who you're paying market rate and employing profitably for a position critical to your business. >it's just a silly red-herring. You've just dismissed a wide swath of people who may want to work but can't, because any employment they could do is effectively outlawed, as a 'red herring.' >If there were a world where hiring people to learn well paying jobs made sense, you'd see scholarships or free programs setup to do this. Where are they? It doesn't make sense, from a corporate perspective. Sub-minimum wage would only ever exploit. It does make sense to hire people in a capacity where they will move up, and some businesses do. In a variety of positions, the education isn't 'free' but rather you learn on the job and provide your labor and in turn you become more qualified in industry. There are plenty of people hiring apprentices and entry-level positions. A simple search 'apprentice' on indeed yields a number of positions like this. Unfortunately minimum wage puts a floor at where people can start, and especially those starting from a very disadvantaged starting point may not be able to get a foot on the ladder at all unless minimum wage is sufficiently low. > It doesn't make sense, from a corporate perspective. Training people makes sense from a corporate perspective, and about every job I can remember entails some sort of training. Just handing things away for free doesn't make sense -- corporations aren't charity (of course I am overlooking some corporate charity and scholarships, but on the whole of course corporations aren't there to give you free things).

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.

pnutjam 5y ago
I'm either arguing with an 11 year old or someone willfully ignorant. >so your simultaneous opposition to it is rather confusing. No opposition to welfare. It should be more generous and more readily avaliable. >you realize the middle and upper class are the ones paying for these tranfer payments to the poorer amongst us anyway. Yes, note the and, if we were actually taxing the wealthy; it would be less of a subsidy. Graduated benefits do not conflict with a minimum wage. Why do you believe all work must be paid? The simple fact is that it takes a minimum amount to live in our Society. Jobs should pay that. I haven't seen a single coherent argument about sub minimum wage work, aside from; "It might make give someone the ability to learn a trade." This is simultaneously ignorant and short-sighted. How would anyone benefit from learning a trade where people are working for a pittance to "learn" how to do the trade? They'll be shuffled out as soon as they start to earn too much. There are also multiple ways to learn trades without worrying about minimum wage, it's just a silly red-herring. If there were a world where hiring people to learn well paying jobs made sense, you'd see scholarships or free programs setup to do this. Where are they? It doesn't make sense, from a corporate perspective. Sub-minimum wage would only ever exploit.
- notch656a 5y ago
  >I'm either arguing with an 11 year old or someone willfully ignorant. Please refrain from these sort of personal character attacks, they don't lead to fruitful discussion and they suggest a weak argument. >No opposition to welfare. It should be more generous and more readily available. Then you really don't have any problem with subsidizing those who aren't earning enough to cover a living. Which makes me confused again by your rhetoric about "subsidies to the rich." >Why do you believe all work must be paid? If a worker and the employer agree upon a wage, I see no reason for the employee not to be paid. >The simple fact is that it takes a minimum amount to live in our Society. That number depends on a number of unique individual factors. You can't broadly decide what an individual requires. When I was young and living in the woods, it only cost me about $300/mo to survive and I was very happy to do odd day labor for shit wages which fully provided for my lifestyle. A single mom with diabetes may need at least $2k / mo to stay out of 'poverty', and quite possibly more than that. You wouldn't outlaw the services I provided when I was young to people that kept me alive, just because someone else may need more than me. >How would anyone benefit from learning a trade where people are working for a pittance to "learn" how to do the trade? You don't see the benefit of learning a trade and progressively being paid more while doing so? Being paid _something_ is better than nothing, unless of course you're in the sort of welfare trap that cuts off some of your aid in a way that makes you worse off for working. >They'll be shuffled out as soon as they start to earn too much. If you're shuffled out of a position, then you now have more bargaining power for the next one if you have more skills. Also it would be dumb to fire someone who you're paying market rate and employing profitably for a position critical to your business. >it's just a silly red-herring. You've just dismissed a wide swath of people who may want to work but can't, because any employment they could do is effectively outlawed, as a 'red herring.' >If there were a world where hiring people to learn well paying jobs made sense, you'd see scholarships or free programs setup to do this. Where are they? It doesn't make sense, from a corporate perspective. Sub-minimum wage would only ever exploit. It does make sense to hire people in a capacity where they will move up, and some businesses do. In a variety of positions, the education isn't 'free' but rather you learn on the job and provide your labor and in turn you become more qualified in industry. There are plenty of people hiring apprentices and entry-level positions. A simple search 'apprentice' on indeed yields a number of positions like this. Unfortunately minimum wage puts a floor at where people can start, and especially those starting from a very disadvantaged starting point may not be able to get a foot on the ladder at all unless minimum wage is sufficiently low. > It doesn't make sense, from a corporate perspective. Training people makes sense from a corporate perspective, and about every job I can remember entails some sort of training. Just handing things away for free doesn't make sense -- corporations aren't charity (of course I am overlooking some corporate charity and scholarships, but on the whole of course corporations aren't there to give you free things).