4 ms·

Who said the business can't fully fund itself? If the worker isn't making enough to survive, they have no reason to take the job. So, the condition you're descr

by darawk 5y ago

Who said the business can't fully fund itself? If the worker isn't making enough to survive, they have no reason to take the job. So, the condition you're describing does not exist, at least not in such a simple form.

ddingus 5y ago
What happens when business operates on less income than it costs to operate? It dies. Same is true for people who are required to labor for more than it costs them to labor. It just so happens we will fund people who cannot exist otherwise, right? And there is the problem. We have many companies perfectly happy to underpay their labor, mooch off the public, and bank that for profit. The likes of McDees, Walmart and many others can and should be fully funding their labor and they don't.
- darawk 5y ago
  There are plenty of countries with lower minimum wage laws than the US. Are you under the impression that their laborers are dying en masse?
  - ddingus 5y ago
    No. The balance of power between labor and employers is different in those nations, which works to reduce the need for minimums. The ones I have looked at also have assistance / subsidy policy that is lower friction and generally not associated with the near constant blame and shame seen here. That's a big deal frankly. Having robust norms well aligned with human quality of life basics is necessary for the help to work as intended. Labor law is a contributor to that balance of power too. "At will" type policies, "right to work for less" policies are examples where the lack of labor protections very significantly bias labor negotiation power toward employers, who tend to get a better deal. Implications here should be obvious. I tend to use business and labor dying when they are not funded well enough to exist as a strong rhetorical tool. This meta discussion is one negative artifact of that. No easy answers, IMHO.

by darawk 5y ago

ddingus 5y ago

What happens when business operates on less income than it costs to operate? It dies. Same is true for people who are required to labor for more than it costs them to labor. It just so happens we will fund people who cannot exist otherwise, right? And there is the problem. We have many companies perfectly happy to underpay their labor, mooch off the public, and bank that for profit. The likes of McDees, Walmart and many others can and should be fully funding their labor and they don't.

darawk 5y ago
There are plenty of countries with lower minimum wage laws than the US. Are you under the impression that their laborers are dying en masse?
- ddingus 5y ago
  No. The balance of power between labor and employers is different in those nations, which works to reduce the need for minimums. The ones I have looked at also have assistance / subsidy policy that is lower friction and generally not associated with the near constant blame and shame seen here. That's a big deal frankly. Having robust norms well aligned with human quality of life basics is necessary for the help to work as intended. Labor law is a contributor to that balance of power too. "At will" type policies, "right to work for less" policies are examples where the lack of labor protections very significantly bias labor negotiation power toward employers, who tend to get a better deal. Implications here should be obvious. I tend to use business and labor dying when they are not funded well enough to exist as a strong rhetorical tool. This meta discussion is one negative artifact of that. No easy answers, IMHO.