> Imagine a record label/streaming service had to pay every artist or actor a minimum wage weather or not thier work generated money more than the business inve

> Imagine a record label/streaming service had to pay every artist or actor a minimum wage weather or not thier work generated money more than the business invested. I doubt it would be sustainable. If it's not sustainable without exploiting the artists, then it shouldn't exist in my opinion. Either prices have to rise or something else has to happen to make things more "fair" (again, I agree that fair is a complicated term and it's hard to put a value on it). Artists aren't employed by streaming services, so the service shouldn't pay minimum wage, but setting a minimum payout or some other measure is something that can be argued for. > Also, should businessmen making less than minimum wage be compensated by the government to make ends meet? If the business owner makes less than minimum wage, it's ok by me. Their business, they have to find a way to make it profitable. But it shouldn't be made more profitable by exploiting the people that sustain it. The government shouldn't compensate the business imo. > think the issue of poverty is a serious one and should be addressed by strengthening social safety nets & providing a form of Universal Basic Income. You are arguing against a government giving money to business owners that struggle to make ends meet, but giving UBI without minimum wage does exactly that. You subsidize businesses that don't pay a living wage that otherwise would go bankrupt. I think things would be different if the power balance wasn't so extremely off between artists and streaming services (or employees and employers in the minimum wage example). But since power is extremely imbalanced, I argue protections should be in place.