3 ms·
When companies are paying so low that the workers can’t support themselves(which US minimum wage does not pay enough for) then the companies are not working for
by lovich 4y ago
When companies are paying so low that the workers can’t support themselves(which US minimum wage does not pay enough for) then the companies are not working for societies benefit. They are getting subsidized by whatever welfare their employees are getting, such as the famous example of Walmart teaching their employees to sign up for food stamps. They are also refusing to engage in the type of innovation that capitalism is supposed to generate in the face of scarce goods, because they aren’t paying for this externality.
Much in the same way that you can’t pay an industry supplying you with critical parts forever because then the parts will eventually stop being built, companies shouldn’t be allowed to pay for less than the necessary amount to support the workers living. If this makes the job they are doing not valuable enough then the companies shouldn’t be engaged in the work that can’t be profitable without subsidies, ask the government for specific earmarked subsidizes if it generates a positive externality, or actually do some innovation and figure out a way to make the work profitable
- throwbadubadu 4y ago> companies are not working for societies benefit That was my point, or "really?" Again, I'd like it to be more that way, but given current laws and what most people agree to: Do they even have to? No!
- lovich 4y agoI mean, you asked about what the debate was. That's the debate. The fact that companies can de facto get away with this behavior doesn't make the debate go away.