45 ms·

It's simple: a business hires a worker when that worker generates more revenue than they cost. So if I want to hire person A, but person A is only able to do w

It's simple: a business hires a worker when that worker generates more revenue than they cost. So if I want to hire person A, but person A is only able to do work that would drive $18 in revenue for me, then I won't hire them at $20 because I will lose money. If I were to hire them at $18 I would at least be neutral, and maybe I could work to get their skills up to the point where they are delivering more than $18, and I am now positive. Maybe they do well enough for me to increase their pay over time. But I cannot do that with this new law. I'm banned from paying them $18. They simply will never work for me, or maybe anyone.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> It’s simple: a business hires a worker when that worker generates more revenue than they cost. Simple, but not actually true.
toomuchtodo 3y ago
Good! Then the business should not exist if it cannot pay a living wage. Your comment makes it sound like you're doing this person a great service, when in actuality, such an arrangement is the problem. An employer paying minimum wage is saying, "I would pay you less if I could get away with it, but I legally cannot." I would encourage you to work harder as a business owner to pay a living wage, if you so choose to be a business owner who requires labor.
- hellojesus 3y ago
  > No one is entitled to labor. Correct. Which is why a business offers a wage and the labor either accepts or rejects it. Zero times have restaurants forced people to work. Exactly all times people have chosen to work, at an agreed upon wage. Why do you think the government should get to decide for how much I'm willing to sell my labor?
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    > Why do you think the government should get to decide for how much I'm willing to sell my labor? Because government's role is to protect its citizens. My apologies if this government is not suitable to you, you may have to relocate if a representative democratic outcome is not to your liking. The evidence is incredibly clear workers need protections from business and capital in the current socioeconomic system, but you may disagree depending on your mental model.
    - hellojesus 3y ago
      > Because government's role is to protect its citizens. We have opposing views, and that's okay. I believe a government should only provide public goods (nonrivalous and nonexcludable). I believe the primary purpose of a government is to protect private property and provide a system for resolving disputes. I believe that welfare should be left to private sector charity. I believe that when the government does it, it is akin to using legal violence to force others to give to your causes, which then robs them of the funds they would rather give to other causes.
      - lotsofpulp 3y ago
        > I believe that when the government does it, it is akin to using legal violence to force others to give to your causes, which then robs them of the funds they would rather give to other causes. What if the private property that the government is protecting was obtained (by ancestors) by “legal” violence to force others to give to your cause?
        hellojesus 3y ago
        Was said property obtained under the current or a prior government? If the current, then it is the duty of the government to resolve the dispute and restore the private property. If it was a former, then there is nothing to be done. The jurisdiction was dissolved, unless the current government recognizes it (but then of course the jurisdiction would not be dissolved).
        3y ago

dragonwriter 3y ago

> It’s simple: a business hires a worker when that worker generates more revenue than they cost. Simple, but not actually true.

toomuchtodo 3y ago

Good! Then the business should not exist if it cannot pay a living wage. Your comment makes it sound like you're doing this person a great service, when in actuality, such an arrangement is the problem. An employer paying minimum wage is saying, "I would pay you less if I could get away with it, but I legally cannot." I would encourage you to work harder as a business owner to pay a living wage, if you so choose to be a business owner who requires labor.

hellojesus 3y ago
> No one is entitled to labor. Correct. Which is why a business offers a wage and the labor either accepts or rejects it. Zero times have restaurants forced people to work. Exactly all times people have chosen to work, at an agreed upon wage. Why do you think the government should get to decide for how much I'm willing to sell my labor?
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  > Why do you think the government should get to decide for how much I'm willing to sell my labor? Because government's role is to protect its citizens. My apologies if this government is not suitable to you, you may have to relocate if a representative democratic outcome is not to your liking. The evidence is incredibly clear workers need protections from business and capital in the current socioeconomic system, but you may disagree depending on your mental model.
  - hellojesus 3y ago
    > Because government's role is to protect its citizens. We have opposing views, and that's okay. I believe a government should only provide public goods (nonrivalous and nonexcludable). I believe the primary purpose of a government is to protect private property and provide a system for resolving disputes. I believe that welfare should be left to private sector charity. I believe that when the government does it, it is akin to using legal violence to force others to give to your causes, which then robs them of the funds they would rather give to other causes.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      > I believe that when the government does it, it is akin to using legal violence to force others to give to your causes, which then robs them of the funds they would rather give to other causes. What if the private property that the government is protecting was obtained (by ancestors) by “legal” violence to force others to give to your cause?
      - hellojesus 3y ago
        Was said property obtained under the current or a prior government? If the current, then it is the duty of the government to resolve the dispute and restore the private property. If it was a former, then there is nothing to be done. The jurisdiction was dissolved, unless the current government recognizes it (but then of course the jurisdiction would not be dissolved).
        3y ago