4 ms·

Are you suggesting a massive expansion of government assistance or of homelessness? I don’t see a fourth option.

stcroixx 4y ago
I’d suggest simply reminding people that if they don’t want to be homeless they need to learn a skill that pays a living wage. This is how it’s been forever.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  So this is just a roundabout way of getting to the original post’s conclusion, right? A nice little coffeeshop may not be possible.
  - stcroixx 4y ago
    A coffee shop is absolutely possible as long as nobody is interfering in the wage agreed on between employer and employee. We’ve had coffee shops forever and they have done fine. It’s only the modern expectation that they should pay more that is threatening that model.
    - bee_rider 4y ago
      If you want to work for leas then a living wage, your living will have to be subsidized somehow I guess, do you agree?
      - stcroixx 4y ago
        No. How to choose to support yourself is up to you to figure out. 3 bad jobs, one good job, you’ll have to figure that out.
  - SantalBlush 4y ago
    Yes, but it gets to the same conclusion in a more condescending way.
bee_rider 4y ago
I think the idea is that these jobs will be taken by teenagers whose parents will provide most of the cost-of-living. Or people working two jobs. The former seems OK, although there’s clearly a lot of demand for coffee shops workers, and a thin slice of the population (what, like 16-20 year olds or so) can’t serve all of it (and also they should really be prioritizing education at that age, so their overall availability should be very low). Having a bunch of people work two jobs is just failure of society.
- brookst 4y ago
  I don’t really buy the teenager theory. In that case, it’s just their parents subsidizing below-cost business operations. I don’t think it’s all that different from government subsidies at the macro scale.
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    I don’t buy the theory itself, but I’m pretty sure that this is what people are thinking of when they say that below living wage jobs should exist. At least — when people say “below living wage jobs should not exist” I think they are not arguing for massive expansion of the social safety net, but for some more cutthroat version of capitalism, consequences be damned.
    - shagie 4y ago
      The needs of a single teenager or young adult are different than those of a middle aged adult with a house to maintain and dependents. If a teenager has a job, are they paying rent to their parents and paying for meals at the family table? This is already subsidized - job or no. The average teenager's job supports the things they want beyond that basic level of support that parents are expected to provide. This really boils down to the set of questions: 1. What value can a company realize with an unskilled worker? 2. What are the financial needs of an unskilled worker without dependents? 3. What are the financial needs of an unskilled worker that needs to support a household? 2 & 3 are likely not the same. And 1 will more closely match 2 than 3... and a lot of the arguments about a living wage are about case 3.

I’d suggest simply reminding people that if they don’t want to be homeless they need to learn a skill that pays a living wage. This is how it’s been forever.

bee_rider 4y ago
So this is just a roundabout way of getting to the original post’s conclusion, right? A nice little coffeeshop may not be possible.
- stcroixx 4y ago
  A coffee shop is absolutely possible as long as nobody is interfering in the wage agreed on between employer and employee. We’ve had coffee shops forever and they have done fine. It’s only the modern expectation that they should pay more that is threatening that model.
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    If you want to work for leas then a living wage, your living will have to be subsidized somehow I guess, do you agree?
    - stcroixx 4y ago
      No. How to choose to support yourself is up to you to figure out. 3 bad jobs, one good job, you’ll have to figure that out.
- SantalBlush 4y ago
  Yes, but it gets to the same conclusion in a more condescending way.

bee_rider 4y ago

I think the idea is that these jobs will be taken by teenagers whose parents will provide most of the cost-of-living. Or people working two jobs. The former seems OK, although there’s clearly a lot of demand for coffee shops workers, and a thin slice of the population (what, like 16-20 year olds or so) can’t serve all of it (and also they should really be prioritizing education at that age, so their overall availability should be very low). Having a bunch of people work two jobs is just failure of society.

brookst 4y ago
I don’t really buy the teenager theory. In that case, it’s just their parents subsidizing below-cost business operations. I don’t think it’s all that different from government subsidies at the macro scale.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  I don’t buy the theory itself, but I’m pretty sure that this is what people are thinking of when they say that below living wage jobs should exist. At least — when people say “below living wage jobs should not exist” I think they are not arguing for massive expansion of the social safety net, but for some more cutthroat version of capitalism, consequences be damned.
  - shagie 4y ago
    The needs of a single teenager or young adult are different than those of a middle aged adult with a house to maintain and dependents. If a teenager has a job, are they paying rent to their parents and paying for meals at the family table? This is already subsidized - job or no. The average teenager's job supports the things they want beyond that basic level of support that parents are expected to provide. This really boils down to the set of questions: 1. What value can a company realize with an unskilled worker? 2. What are the financial needs of an unskilled worker without dependents? 3. What are the financial needs of an unskilled worker that needs to support a household? 2 & 3 are likely not the same. And 1 will more closely match 2 than 3... and a lot of the arguments about a living wage are about case 3.