3 ms·

I don't think either of these positions is correct. The reason fast food workers don't earn more money is because there is a pool of workers who are willing to

I don't think either of these positions is correct. The reason fast food workers don't earn more money is because there is a pool of workers who are willing to accept the current wages, because they don't have a better alternative. It has nothing to do with "deserve", in either direction.

KennyBlanken 3y ago
No, it's because welfare programs enable employers to offer wages that aren't livable. The absolute floor for wages should at least meet a person's non-discretionary expenses plus a bit of discretionary spending if they're working close to full time. If it doesn't meet that minimum level, then the employee is unable to work that job. They simply can't. By moving some of their non-discretionary spending to welfare, that means the employer can offer a lower wage. We are effectively subsidizing all the businesses that utilize entry-level/"unskilled" labor. Walmart employs people whose sole job is to help walmart workers apply for welfare benefits, and as a result, can pay those people less. Realize that state and federal agencies spend time developing pamphlets advising welfare recipients how to make the absolute most out of the maximum of roughly eight dollars a day SNAP provides in benefits per person. It's crazy that we're telling welfare recipients how to make the most of eight dollars a day for food, while giving tax writeoffs for business jets.
- dwaltrip 3y ago
  > The absolute floor for wages should at least meet a person's non-discretionary expenses plus a bit of discretionary spending if they're working close to full time. If it doesn't meet that minimum level, then the employee is unable to work that job. They simply can't. You are over-simplifying. That isn’t how it plays out in reality. People will accept a non-livable wage under many circumstances. Here’s a few: * working extra hours at two different minimum wage jobs * living costs subsidized in some way, e.g. living with friends or family * college student or high-school student who doesn’t yet have to pay for all of their expenses * homeless or partially homeless * relying on savings to cover the gap * retired person who doesn’t need to earn enough to cover all of their expenses And so on…
  - petsfed 3y ago
    Let us rephrase then: If a person cannot cover all of their non-discretionary expenses, plus a little left over, working 40 hours at a given wage, that wage is too low. Period. If the cheapest housing in your area requires you to work more than 40 hours a week at a given wage to cover rent, cheapest-possible food, least-possible utilities, and whatever the lowest cost option to commute to/from work is, the wage is too low. Period. It doesn't matter that people manage to not die making less than whatever the livable wage is, because the point is that paying someone less than that wage is unethical. If someone punches me in the face, the things I do to mitigate the damage don't somehow also mitigate the wrongness of punching me in the first place.
    - dwaltrip 3y ago
      You bring up good points! For what it's worth, I wasn't arguing against livable wages. I simply wanted to point out the error in the parent comment's argument.

KennyBlanken 3y ago

No, it's because welfare programs enable employers to offer wages that aren't livable. The absolute floor for wages should at least meet a person's non-discretionary expenses plus a bit of discretionary spending if they're working close to full time. If it doesn't meet that minimum level, then the employee is unable to work that job. They simply can't. By moving some of their non-discretionary spending to welfare, that means the employer can offer a lower wage. We are effectively subsidizing all the businesses that utilize entry-level/"unskilled" labor. Walmart employs people whose sole job is to help walmart workers apply for welfare benefits, and as a result, can pay those people less. Realize that state and federal agencies spend time developing pamphlets advising welfare recipients how to make the absolute most out of the maximum of roughly eight dollars a day SNAP provides in benefits per person. It's crazy that we're telling welfare recipients how to make the most of eight dollars a day for food, while giving tax writeoffs for business jets.

dwaltrip 3y ago
> The absolute floor for wages should at least meet a person's non-discretionary expenses plus a bit of discretionary spending if they're working close to full time. If it doesn't meet that minimum level, then the employee is unable to work that job. They simply can't. You are over-simplifying. That isn’t how it plays out in reality. People will accept a non-livable wage under many circumstances. Here’s a few: * working extra hours at two different minimum wage jobs * living costs subsidized in some way, e.g. living with friends or family * college student or high-school student who doesn’t yet have to pay for all of their expenses * homeless or partially homeless * relying on savings to cover the gap * retired person who doesn’t need to earn enough to cover all of their expenses And so on…
- petsfed 3y ago
  Let us rephrase then: If a person cannot cover all of their non-discretionary expenses, plus a little left over, working 40 hours at a given wage, that wage is too low. Period. If the cheapest housing in your area requires you to work more than 40 hours a week at a given wage to cover rent, cheapest-possible food, least-possible utilities, and whatever the lowest cost option to commute to/from work is, the wage is too low. Period. It doesn't matter that people manage to not die making less than whatever the livable wage is, because the point is that paying someone less than that wage is unethical. If someone punches me in the face, the things I do to mitigate the damage don't somehow also mitigate the wrongness of punching me in the first place.
  - dwaltrip 3y ago
    You bring up good points! For what it's worth, I wasn't arguing against livable wages. I simply wanted to point out the error in the parent comment's argument.