5 ms·

c) the minimum amount required to live peacefully and with dignity.

by pylua 3y ago

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
This is generally why I'm in favor of a UBI. It would solve so many employment problems if an employee in a bad situation could up and leave without a near-guarantee that they lose access to their home.
- kevincox 3y ago
  I agree with this. Adding arbitrary limits and thresholds just causes strange effects elsewhere. If you remove the absolute need to accept whatever job is available then you have the ability to properly negotiate what salary is worth it to you.
- massysett 3y ago
  I disagree. Other people in society should not have to work hard so they can provide for others who would like to quit their jobs, sit around and do nothing, and live off the labor of others. Because the person who quits their job because of UBI is still eating, and that food isn't harvesting itself and transporting itself to market.
kimbernator 3y ago
While it's repeated ad nauseam, this was the intended purpose of the minimum wage, as quoted by FDR who signed the minimum wage into law: “It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.”
- npoc 3y ago
  It seems to be another case of naïve, clumsy legislation causing more problems than it solves.
  - kimbernator 3y ago
    I don't mean to make assumptions about your life or your conditions, but in scenario A you describe a reality where there are a meaningful number of people who would be content to sell their labor for less than $7.25 per hour. I do not find this believable, given how little that amount is in today's dollars. At the point that you're okay with working for, say, $5/hour, why work at all? What lifestyle permits that as an income? What percentage of people do you believe would be okay with this? Additionally, you are describing an effect where removal of the minimum wage would result in more people working, but what of the wages of people who currently work for minimum wage? Clearly the jobs are economical at that rate, but I have a hard time believing that employers paying $7.25/hour would continue doing so if they weren't legally required to. I would be willing to wager my life savings that the loss in income associated with that would dwarf the amount of money being made by the hypothetical class of people you're describing.
    - npoc 3y ago
      In the case of most US states, I think it's fair to say that the minimum wage is moot. As you say, hardly anyone would consider working for less than that anyway. But why take away their freedom to do so?
      - rhcom2 3y ago
        Well I think for one there is a power imbalance between employees and employers that seems primed for abuse without some regulatory minimum. Also is the goal to maximize the number in the workflow, or get people out of poverty? Having them work for less may increase employment figures but they'll still be in poverty. The minimum wage has shown to decrease employment but also lift the people employed out of poverty [1]. 1. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-02/56975-Minimum-Wage.pdf https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-02/56975-Minimum-Wage....
npoc 3y ago
If you want that and you aren't producing enough value to warrant it, why should someone else pay for it? Find some more valuable work to do, work harder In the UK you'll get benefits to top up your wage anyway.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- margalabargala 3y ago
  > you aren't producing enough value to warrant it In industries where the availability of workers is high, the amount of value produced per worker does not particularly relate to the amount that that worker is paid. If the worker produces more than enough value to their employer that that employer could pay them enough to live with dignity while also making a profit on that worker, then perhaps they ought be required to.
- ziddoap 3y ago
  This is some "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" bullshit. There are many, many situations where it is simply not possible to just "find more valuable work to do" or to just "work harder" and have it result in more money.
  - npoc 3y ago
    That doesn't mean that enforcing a minimum wage is the correct way to fix the problem. It's not.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- whatindaheck 3y ago
  Someone has to collect the garbage, clean public restrooms, produce our food, etc. We can't all be CEOs. Society depends on these "lowly" jobs. If the three jobs above ceased to exist we'd all be in trouble. They're all important enough to warrant a dignity wage. In first grade we all learn that food, shelter, and water are the most basic living requirements. Add standard-of-living necessities such as internet, education, and healthcare access into the mix if you feel generous. How can we afford NOT to provide basic requirements for these keystone jobs? Sure, they aren't "innovating" the newest phone or providing value to shareholders (gross), but in many ways they're far more important. If you really want to own a Ferrari, or really anything extraneous, sure you should have to pull on those bootstraps. But not for food. Not for water. Not for shelter.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> the minimum amount required to live peacefully and with dignity. The issue is that there is no such uniform amount. If your spouse makes 85% as much as the two of you need to live with dignity, you don't need to make as much as they do and may prefer not to because the lower-paying job is less difficult or more satisfying. For someone else it could be 95%, or 99%, or 250% and the second job is pure supplemental income, so what's the minimum meant to be here? The minimum wage doesn't account for costs. A job across the street from you means you don't need a car, don't have to pay for fuel or maintenance or transit tickets and don't have to spend hours in traffic (which you could have spent working and getting paid). For a long commute this difference in value can be more than the entire minimum wage. It's possible for jobs to provide training, which is attractive for entry-level workers or anyone trying to change occupations or learn new skills, because school otherwise costs money. But if you're spending extra hours "at work" getting trained while the value of the training comes out of your paycheck, there isn't any sensible "minimum wage" for this. You could be receiving $50,000/year worth of training while "getting paid" only $5000/year and you're the one coming out ahead because you don't otherwise qualify for a job that pays $55,000/year. You might still be ahead if you were paying them $5000/year. So how are you supposed to set a minimum wage if the "minimum amount required to live peacefully and with dignity" is different for everyone, and setting it below that threshold deprives people of valuable alternatives?
- wizardwes 3y ago
  You don't have to work full time. Your spouse makes 85% of what you need? Cool, you can work 15% of the amount of time you otherwise would. And for the person getting the training, that still doesn't affect their cost of living. Training isn't cash in hand. I think it's perfectly reasonable to pick a model citizen and work from there. I'd personally target the living expenses for a single person, living in a studio or 1 bedroom apartment, with the expected average commute for the area, and who is generally healthy. People living outside that situation can choose to work more or less as needed and possible, and people significantly outside that, such as the disabled, or those with children, can qualify for further support.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago

c) the minimum amount required to live peacefully and with dignity.

by pylua 3y ago

c) the minimum amount required to live peacefully and with dignity.

This is generally why I'm in favor of a UBI. It would solve so many employment problems if an employee in a bad situation could up and leave without a near-guarantee that they lose access to their home.

kevincox 3y ago
I agree with this. Adding arbitrary limits and thresholds just causes strange effects elsewhere. If you remove the absolute need to accept whatever job is available then you have the ability to properly negotiate what salary is worth it to you.
massysett 3y ago
I disagree. Other people in society should not have to work hard so they can provide for others who would like to quit their jobs, sit around and do nothing, and live off the labor of others. Because the person who quits their job because of UBI is still eating, and that food isn't harvesting itself and transporting itself to market.

kimbernator 3y ago

While it's repeated ad nauseam, this was the intended purpose of the minimum wage, as quoted by FDR who signed the minimum wage into law: “It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.”

npoc 3y ago
It seems to be another case of naïve, clumsy legislation causing more problems than it solves.
- kimbernator 3y ago
  I don't mean to make assumptions about your life or your conditions, but in scenario A you describe a reality where there are a meaningful number of people who would be content to sell their labor for less than $7.25 per hour. I do not find this believable, given how little that amount is in today's dollars. At the point that you're okay with working for, say, $5/hour, why work at all? What lifestyle permits that as an income? What percentage of people do you believe would be okay with this? Additionally, you are describing an effect where removal of the minimum wage would result in more people working, but what of the wages of people who currently work for minimum wage? Clearly the jobs are economical at that rate, but I have a hard time believing that employers paying $7.25/hour would continue doing so if they weren't legally required to. I would be willing to wager my life savings that the loss in income associated with that would dwarf the amount of money being made by the hypothetical class of people you're describing.
  - npoc 3y ago
    In the case of most US states, I think it's fair to say that the minimum wage is moot. As you say, hardly anyone would consider working for less than that anyway. But why take away their freedom to do so?
    - rhcom2 3y ago
      Well I think for one there is a power imbalance between employees and employers that seems primed for abuse without some regulatory minimum. Also is the goal to maximize the number in the workflow, or get people out of poverty? Having them work for less may increase employment figures but they'll still be in poverty. The minimum wage has shown to decrease employment but also lift the people employed out of poverty [1]. 1. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-02/56975-Minimum-Wage.pdf https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-02/56975-Minimum-Wage....

npoc 3y ago

If you want that and you aren't producing enough value to warrant it, why should someone else pay for it? Find some more valuable work to do, work harder In the UK you'll get benefits to top up your wage anyway.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
margalabargala 3y ago
> you aren't producing enough value to warrant it In industries where the availability of workers is high, the amount of value produced per worker does not particularly relate to the amount that that worker is paid. If the worker produces more than enough value to their employer that that employer could pay them enough to live with dignity while also making a profit on that worker, then perhaps they ought be required to.
ziddoap 3y ago
This is some "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" bullshit. There are many, many situations where it is simply not possible to just "find more valuable work to do" or to just "work harder" and have it result in more money.
- npoc 3y ago
  That doesn't mean that enforcing a minimum wage is the correct way to fix the problem. It's not.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
whatindaheck 3y ago
Someone has to collect the garbage, clean public restrooms, produce our food, etc. We can't all be CEOs. Society depends on these "lowly" jobs. If the three jobs above ceased to exist we'd all be in trouble. They're all important enough to warrant a dignity wage. In first grade we all learn that food, shelter, and water are the most basic living requirements. Add standard-of-living necessities such as internet, education, and healthcare access into the mix if you feel generous. How can we afford NOT to provide basic requirements for these keystone jobs? Sure, they aren't "innovating" the newest phone or providing value to shareholders (gross), but in many ways they're far more important. If you really want to own a Ferrari, or really anything extraneous, sure you should have to pull on those bootstraps. But not for food. Not for water. Not for shelter.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> the minimum amount required to live peacefully and with dignity. The issue is that there is no such uniform amount. If your spouse makes 85% as much as the two of you need to live with dignity, you don't need to make as much as they do and may prefer not to because the lower-paying job is less difficult or more satisfying. For someone else it could be 95%, or 99%, or 250% and the second job is pure supplemental income, so what's the minimum meant to be here? The minimum wage doesn't account for costs. A job across the street from you means you don't need a car, don't have to pay for fuel or maintenance or transit tickets and don't have to spend hours in traffic (which you could have spent working and getting paid). For a long commute this difference in value can be more than the entire minimum wage. It's possible for jobs to provide training, which is attractive for entry-level workers or anyone trying to change occupations or learn new skills, because school otherwise costs money. But if you're spending extra hours "at work" getting trained while the value of the training comes out of your paycheck, there isn't any sensible "minimum wage" for this. You could be receiving $50,000/year worth of training while "getting paid" only $5000/year and you're the one coming out ahead because you don't otherwise qualify for a job that pays $55,000/year. You might still be ahead if you were paying them $5000/year. So how are you supposed to set a minimum wage if the "minimum amount required to live peacefully and with dignity" is different for everyone, and setting it below that threshold deprives people of valuable alternatives?

wizardwes 3y ago
You don't have to work full time. Your spouse makes 85% of what you need? Cool, you can work 15% of the amount of time you otherwise would. And for the person getting the training, that still doesn't affect their cost of living. Training isn't cash in hand. I think it's perfectly reasonable to pick a model citizen and work from there. I'd personally target the living expenses for a single person, living in a studio or 1 bedroom apartment, with the expected average commute for the area, and who is generally healthy. People living outside that situation can choose to work more or less as needed and possible, and people significantly outside that, such as the disabled, or those with children, can qualify for further support.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago