3 ms·
If a business can't pay it's employees enough to live on it shouldn't survive.
by sapphicsnail 1mo ago
If a business can't pay it's employees enough to live on it shouldn't survive.
- mbmbn 1mo ago[dead]
- astr0n0m3r 1mo agoThis suggests that a person below this threshold would be entirely dependent on a social safety net (family, government, charity), instead of having a job with a partial dependency.
- tt24 1mo agoHow does this statement relate to my comment?
- joquarky 1mo agoYou've now posted this same comment multiple times within this same thread. It's becoming apparent that comprehension is a you problem.
- tt24 1mo agoThen it should be pretty easy to explain right? I’ve seen the same reply to my comment multiple times. Each time it has nothing to do with what I said. I made no claim regarding businesses surviving or not surviving. Why do people keep replying the same thing?
- defrost 1mo agoMaybe look to the economic hell hole of Australia that's had a minimum wage linked to living standards for 120 year now. If a business isn't structured to pay external staff the minimum hourly wage in exchange for what they are expected to do in an hour, that's tough. If people are unable to genuinely find a job in exchange for what they can do by their best efforts in an hour then they can apply for assistance.
- joquarky 1mo agoIf everyone else seems like an asshole, it's time for self reflection.
- tt24 1mo agoClearly it’s not everyone else. You can see multiple replies to my comment expressing the same frustration that I am.
- d4v3 1mo agoI see this parroted a lot, but it's more of a moral assertion that is completely ignorant of how economics works. This claim is easily debunked in a microeconomics 101 class. A business that can’t pay an arbitrary “living wage” disappearing doesn’t guarantee its workers get better jobs. In fact, it's often quite the opposite (less hours, automation, etc.). Not everyone's circumstances are the same, and not every job need to pay some arbitrary amount per hour.