3 ms·

I like to see it this way: If a worker can't live a decent life without benefits on what you pay them, then society as a whole is subsidizing you. And in doing

by vidarh 2y ago

I like to see it this way: If a worker can't live a decent life without benefits on what you pay them, then society as a whole is subsidizing you. And in doing so, we're biasing competition in favour of businesses that depend on subsidies over businesses that are well run enough to be able to pay a livable salary. We'd be better off with companies like that not existing, even if it means paying better benefits to some people to make up for some lost jobs - it improve the chances of success and ability to create more jobs for companies that payer a living wage.

bryanlarsen 2y ago
Yes, that's what we've decided as a modern society. If you're too old, too young or too unhealthy to be a productive member of society, a civil society will provide you with the basics of life anyway. And it's not black or white. There are lots of people who can contribute a little, but cannot contribute their full share. But we've set up the rules in a way that makes it very difficult for them to work and contribute. If you have income, your welfare often gets cut off completely. That's counter-productive. There are lots of people who should be able to get some of their income from work and some from welfare, and that's the way things should be, a gradual change from "all from welfare" to "all from work".
- scotty79 2y ago
  He wasn't talking about subsidizing people. Letting companies pay people too little is subsidizing those inefficient unproductive companies. Society might subsidize inefficient people because of humanity. Subsidizing inefficient unproductive companies is just dumb.
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    > Letting companies pay people too little is subsidizing those inefficient unproductive companies. That's a direct subsidy to people assuming that too little subsidy is supplemented with welfare or food stamps. It may also be an indirect second-order subsidy to a company, but it is first and foremost a subsidy to people.
    - vidarh 2y ago
      It's a subsidy to people, but it's the indirect subsidy to companies by allowing them to lean on people being underpaid and have society pick up the bill that is a problem. You can "fix" that problem by eliminating welfare, or by ensuring companies pay enough. Since most of us don't want people to starve, either we're stuck with the problem, where we're distorting the market in a way that incentivizes behavior that harms society, or we level the playing field by ensuring companies pay enough.
loa_in_ 2y ago
I see this as economic pollution originating from those companies. They dip below the danger line because they can and it has so many negative societal effects that... it might be impossible to clean up.
- Jensson 2y ago
  > it has so many negative societal effects that... it might be impossible to clean up. How is low wages worse than no wages? I don't get it.
  - vidarh 2y ago
    Subsidizing companies to outcompete those able to be productive enough to pay livable wages creates a competitive pressure towards lower wages for more people, and creates a greater need for those subsidies.
  - willcipriano 2y ago
    Me and a guy with go into a job interview. The other guy gets his apartment paid for by the state, he asks for $10/hr I need to pay for my apartment so I need $20. The other guy gets the job and the apartment. Have this play out a million times across the entire economy.
  - loa_in_ 2y ago
    Let's imagine someone working a standard full-time job. They put in the same hours as everyone else. Constraints make it so you can't really have 1.5 of a job or two, not really, not sustainably, so they have one job. If an employee at the end of the month ends up having some kind of disposable income, that's a great result. If an employee at the end of the month ends up not having some kind of disposable income, but still have their needs met, that's an okay result. But if they put in as many hours as everyone else and their income dips below some logistical threshold their work becomes unsustainable. Either someone else has to pay for their continued living or they sink. Now since companies figured out that government will help people on the verge of sinking, they would gradually lower pay below the threshold, while government makes up the difference from everyone else's pocket. They would do that, they /are/ doing that, so to combat this government imposes a minimum wage. Not to say, that there aren't jobs that make sense to be below minimum wage, but the big bad actors force government's hand, just like one liar destroys everyone's trust in everyone else.
Ferret7446 2y ago
You're assuming society can function with only businesses that are well run enough to be able to pay a livable salary, which is quite a daring assumption even if it's one we'd all like to be true.
- vidarh 2y ago
  The problem isn't allowing functions to be carried out at a loss, but creating a situation where we reward only companies that underpay as a means to compete. If you believe it is too expensive to create jobs on the low end, then subsidize all of them, so the most efficient of those companies are not penalized. The problem is adverse incentives that make it more profitable to do things that harm society.

by vidarh 2y ago

bryanlarsen 2y ago

Yes, that's what we've decided as a modern society. If you're too old, too young or too unhealthy to be a productive member of society, a civil society will provide you with the basics of life anyway. And it's not black or white. There are lots of people who can contribute a little, but cannot contribute their full share. But we've set up the rules in a way that makes it very difficult for them to work and contribute. If you have income, your welfare often gets cut off completely. That's counter-productive. There are lots of people who should be able to get some of their income from work and some from welfare, and that's the way things should be, a gradual change from "all from welfare" to "all from work".

scotty79 2y ago
He wasn't talking about subsidizing people. Letting companies pay people too little is subsidizing those inefficient unproductive companies. Society might subsidize inefficient people because of humanity. Subsidizing inefficient unproductive companies is just dumb.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  > Letting companies pay people too little is subsidizing those inefficient unproductive companies. That's a direct subsidy to people assuming that too little subsidy is supplemented with welfare or food stamps. It may also be an indirect second-order subsidy to a company, but it is first and foremost a subsidy to people.
  - vidarh 2y ago
    It's a subsidy to people, but it's the indirect subsidy to companies by allowing them to lean on people being underpaid and have society pick up the bill that is a problem. You can "fix" that problem by eliminating welfare, or by ensuring companies pay enough. Since most of us don't want people to starve, either we're stuck with the problem, where we're distorting the market in a way that incentivizes behavior that harms society, or we level the playing field by ensuring companies pay enough.

loa_in_ 2y ago

I see this as economic pollution originating from those companies. They dip below the danger line because they can and it has so many negative societal effects that... it might be impossible to clean up.

Jensson 2y ago
> it has so many negative societal effects that... it might be impossible to clean up. How is low wages worse than no wages? I don't get it.
- vidarh 2y ago
  Subsidizing companies to outcompete those able to be productive enough to pay livable wages creates a competitive pressure towards lower wages for more people, and creates a greater need for those subsidies.
- willcipriano 2y ago
  Me and a guy with go into a job interview. The other guy gets his apartment paid for by the state, he asks for $10/hr I need to pay for my apartment so I need $20. The other guy gets the job and the apartment. Have this play out a million times across the entire economy.
- loa_in_ 2y ago
  Let's imagine someone working a standard full-time job. They put in the same hours as everyone else. Constraints make it so you can't really have 1.5 of a job or two, not really, not sustainably, so they have one job. If an employee at the end of the month ends up having some kind of disposable income, that's a great result. If an employee at the end of the month ends up not having some kind of disposable income, but still have their needs met, that's an okay result. But if they put in as many hours as everyone else and their income dips below some logistical threshold their work becomes unsustainable. Either someone else has to pay for their continued living or they sink. Now since companies figured out that government will help people on the verge of sinking, they would gradually lower pay below the threshold, while government makes up the difference from everyone else's pocket. They would do that, they /are/ doing that, so to combat this government imposes a minimum wage. Not to say, that there aren't jobs that make sense to be below minimum wage, but the big bad actors force government's hand, just like one liar destroys everyone's trust in everyone else.

Ferret7446 2y ago

You're assuming society can function with only businesses that are well run enough to be able to pay a livable salary, which is quite a daring assumption even if it's one we'd all like to be true.

vidarh 2y ago
The problem isn't allowing functions to be carried out at a loss, but creating a situation where we reward only companies that underpay as a means to compete. If you believe it is too expensive to create jobs on the low end, then subsidize all of them, so the most efficient of those companies are not penalized. The problem is adverse incentives that make it more profitable to do things that harm society.