3 ms·

The author's tone is...definitely not neutral and it make it hard to believe them when they put pure conjecture in: "Between the high demand and likely paying w

The author's tone is...definitely not neutral and it make it hard to believe them when they put pure conjecture in: "Between the high demand and likely paying workers a subminimum wage" with footnote "...While this practice was completely legal (current federal law permits employers to pay disabled workers a fraction of minimum wage), it’s certainly questionable practice coming from a guy whose entire schtick revolves around stewardship." I was waiting to read how it was possible that Green might have kicked a puppy or drown some kittens.

armchairhacker 2y ago
Although it sounds very bad, there’s actually a good argument for paying disabled workers below-minimum wage: - Disabled people get paid (what is supposed to be, but not actually, a living wage) by the government, so they aren’t living on the wage. - No company would hire them if they were forced to pay minimum wage, because companies are greedy and would always hire a more productive non-disabled worker. - Many disabled workers want to work not for the pay, but because they enjoy the work and/or want to feel productive. As stated, they get paid by the government, so in theory they don’t have to work if they don’t want to. With the caveat that disability payments outside of work should be raised, so that nobody (disabled or not) feels like they must work a too-boring or too-hard job to afford a decent standard of living (unless absolutely necessary for society to subsist, but that’s another discussion)…I think it’s a great practice. Maybe there are good arguments against it, but a good argument needs to provide the full context.
- Iulioh 2y ago
  My counterargument would be: If it is bellow ""living wage"" it should not be allowed. (that was easy) You can find other workarounds to incentive the hiring of disabled people and we (in italy) have a few: -Requirement of medium and big firms to hire them (reduced ability, they can still perform) For example where i work there is a janitor that has dawn syndrome and an IT guy with dwarfism -tax breaks (so the worker still get paid minimum wage but to the company he costs less)
  - marky1991 2y ago
    How is that an argument? That's just a position with no defense.
    - themaninthedark 2y ago
      It ironically fits in with the article :)
    - Iulioh 2y ago
      It's an argument in the same way "human rights" are an argument. Can we justify giving disable people less rights? Sure. Let me tell you _a modest proposal_ .
  - armchairhacker 2y ago
    The point is that the in theory, workers receive above living wage, even though the company pays below, because they also get paid by the government. (I'm arguing for the theory; in the US it's not true, but also in the US even minimum wage is below living). However, tax breaks sound better. I worry that requiring companies to hire disabled workers, instead of just making it profitable to do so, would cause more workers to be abused. Every method has some abuse from bad actors, but a requirement specifically influences companies who wouldn't hire disabled workers even if they could assign zero tasks to them and financially benefit.
- gadders 2y ago
  Yes, there was debate about this in the UK. If a disabled person can only do one widget per hour, and an able-bodied can do 10, what is the correct wage for that disabled person? If you think they should both be paid the same, who should pay the additional cost?
  - chuckadams 2y ago
    > If you think they should both be paid the same, who should pay the additional cost? The taxpayer, in the form of a direct wage subsidy. Comes out to virtually nothing compared to the amount of corporate welfare we shovel out every day. The company still isn't compelled to hire the disabled person if they won't be effective on the job, but companies that were inclined to hire them before still will, pay the same amount as before, and we taxpayers will pay the price tag of a bomber or two to ensure that some people have some independence and dignity. Which of course is why such a thing will never happen here.
    - gowld 2y ago
      As mentioned on this very thread, "such a thing" is exactly what happens "here", but without you impractical demand to track the productivity of a worker with government-recognized sub-par productivity.
  - BobaFloutist 2y ago
    Right but minimum wage exceptions invariably end up with disabled people getting paid 1/10 minimum wage to do 9 or 10 widgets an hour.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  idk I read all that and it still sounds very bad to me.

armchairhacker 2y ago

Although it sounds very bad, there’s actually a good argument for paying disabled workers below-minimum wage: - Disabled people get paid (what is supposed to be, but not actually, a living wage) by the government, so they aren’t living on the wage. - No company would hire them if they were forced to pay minimum wage, because companies are greedy and would always hire a more productive non-disabled worker. - Many disabled workers want to work not for the pay, but because they enjoy the work and/or want to feel productive. As stated, they get paid by the government, so in theory they don’t have to work if they don’t want to. With the caveat that disability payments outside of work should be raised, so that nobody (disabled or not) feels like they must work a too-boring or too-hard job to afford a decent standard of living (unless absolutely necessary for society to subsist, but that’s another discussion)…I think it’s a great practice. Maybe there are good arguments against it, but a good argument needs to provide the full context.

Iulioh 2y ago
My counterargument would be: If it is bellow ""living wage"" it should not be allowed. (that was easy) You can find other workarounds to incentive the hiring of disabled people and we (in italy) have a few: -Requirement of medium and big firms to hire them (reduced ability, they can still perform) For example where i work there is a janitor that has dawn syndrome and an IT guy with dwarfism -tax breaks (so the worker still get paid minimum wage but to the company he costs less)
- marky1991 2y ago
  How is that an argument? That's just a position with no defense.
  - themaninthedark 2y ago
    It ironically fits in with the article :)
  - Iulioh 2y ago
    It's an argument in the same way "human rights" are an argument. Can we justify giving disable people less rights? Sure. Let me tell you _a modest proposal_ .
- armchairhacker 2y ago
  The point is that the in theory, workers receive above living wage, even though the company pays below, because they also get paid by the government. (I'm arguing for the theory; in the US it's not true, but also in the US even minimum wage is below living). However, tax breaks sound better. I worry that requiring companies to hire disabled workers, instead of just making it profitable to do so, would cause more workers to be abused. Every method has some abuse from bad actors, but a requirement specifically influences companies who wouldn't hire disabled workers even if they could assign zero tasks to them and financially benefit.
gadders 2y ago
Yes, there was debate about this in the UK. If a disabled person can only do one widget per hour, and an able-bodied can do 10, what is the correct wage for that disabled person? If you think they should both be paid the same, who should pay the additional cost?
- chuckadams 2y ago
  > If you think they should both be paid the same, who should pay the additional cost? The taxpayer, in the form of a direct wage subsidy. Comes out to virtually nothing compared to the amount of corporate welfare we shovel out every day. The company still isn't compelled to hire the disabled person if they won't be effective on the job, but companies that were inclined to hire them before still will, pay the same amount as before, and we taxpayers will pay the price tag of a bomber or two to ensure that some people have some independence and dignity. Which of course is why such a thing will never happen here.
  - gowld 2y ago
    As mentioned on this very thread, "such a thing" is exactly what happens "here", but without you impractical demand to track the productivity of a worker with government-recognized sub-par productivity.
- BobaFloutist 2y ago
  Right but minimum wage exceptions invariably end up with disabled people getting paid 1/10 minimum wage to do 9 or 10 widgets an hour.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
giraffe_lady 2y ago
idk I read all that and it still sounds very bad to me.