5 ms·
This is just abolishing the minimum wage. Since most people don't get paid the minimum wage this would only affect a small number of workers. But the main benef
by zeroonetwothree 15y ago
This is just abolishing the minimum wage. Since most people don't get paid the minimum wage this would only affect a small number of workers. But the main benefit is that currently unemployable people would actually be able to get hired.
- eli_gottlieb 15y agoIf a job isn't productive enough to provide for the upkeep of the worker (ie: to pay a living wage), why should it exist? At that point, the worker's slow-motion death (or the welfare money society pays to prevent that) are just subsidizing a ridiculously unproductive employer.
- gms 15y agoBy your logic no part-time hourly-wage work should ever exist.
- eli_gottlieb 15y agoOh, if the employer can provide a liveable income in 20 hours/week, I've got no problem with that! But yes, it simply shouldn't exist. Well, maybe we can allow an exemption based on age or legal dependency status for teenage kids earning extra money at a movie theater. In that case, though, the parents are basically subsidizing the movie theater.
- gms 15y agoWhat if I have a spare 8 hours a week (say, Saturdays), and want to use them every week to earn some extra cash (at say $12 an hour, coming out to an extra $96 a week). Should I be prevented from doing this?
- eli_gottlieb 15y agoYes, because it results in employers "playing games" with the distinction between full-time and part-time to avoid having to give a living wage and benefits.