4 ms·

How is it not immoral? Why should employees work full time yet still need food stamps to get by, while employers see record profits? How is it moral to not pay

How is it not immoral? Why should employees work full time yet still need food stamps to get by, while employers see record profits? How is it moral to not pay someone a living wage, while the wages at the top go up? http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/corporate-subsidy-watch/hidden-taxpayer-costs http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/corporate-subsidy-watch/hidden-...

paulhauggis 14y ago
How often is this really happening? and what is the cause? Is it because the employer isn't paying employees enough or is it because the employee made poor life decisions (had kids too early, didn't learn any marketable skills, etc)? Minimum wage isn't meant to support an entire family. There are plenty of places you can rent these days that are cheap (Just looking on craiglist, I can see rooms for rent that someone can easily afford on minimum wage) and you can buy cheap food (Walmart is the cheapest in my area). It isn't ideal or easy, but it's not impossible. A bigger problem is the education of our citizens on life decisions that may cause difficult times for many years to come in their future. No amount of government regulation will solve these issues. The other problem is globalization. Many people here love the Internet and the freedom it brings, but it also brings competition from countries like China and India.
- enraged_camel 14y ago
  Is it because the employer isn't paying employees enough or is it because the employee made poor life decisions (had kids too early, didn't learn any marketable skills, etc)? WOW! This is not only textbook false dichotomy, but also a fundamental attribution error [1]. "Had kids too early" - what if their pregnancy was a result of rape, and they could not afford an abortion (or it was illegal in their state)? "Didn't learn any marketable skills" - what if they weren't born into a good family and didn't have the role models that could teach them what skills are marketable in the first place. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
ctdonath 14y ago
How moral is it to not earn a living wage, but expect others to supply it anyway?
- Avshalom 14y ago
  The Waltons' fortunes are built by our labor, unless you think they could staff ~9000 locations by themselves.
  - ctdonath 14y ago
    Non-sequitur. The Walton's fortunes are built by trading for our labor, benefitting both. This does not obligate the Waltons to pay "living wages" where the value of one's labor does not rise to the cost of one's living expenses.
    - Avshalom 14y ago
      The point is that we are not asking Walmart to "supply" us with a living wage from somebody's personal bank account or that somebody else work harder so we can get paid more. The workers are already creating a value for the company significantly larger than what they see every two weeks. We are asking that Walmart/Employer-X give us a larger portion of our labor back.
      - ctdonath 14y ago
        So ask for a raise. A thing is worth only what another is willing to pay for it. If others are willing to do the same work for the objected-to price, you're asking too much. Of course the company gets more value out of the work than the employee. If it were just break-even, the question would be "why bother?" and either just not have the work done, or find a radically different way to get it done (say, hiring Roomba if the cost of human floor-sweepers gets too high). The great thing about employment is BOTH get more out than they put in - yes, that includes the employee working there instead of elsewhere for lower pay, or not being paid for not working anywhere. Sucks, yes, at times. Most of human history involved a lot of effort to eek out a meager existence. If you want more, you gotta do more that others are willing to pay more for. Oh, and yes - you ARE asking for a "living wage from somebody's personal bank account". The Waltons are people too.

paulhauggis 14y ago

How often is this really happening? and what is the cause? Is it because the employer isn't paying employees enough or is it because the employee made poor life decisions (had kids too early, didn't learn any marketable skills, etc)? Minimum wage isn't meant to support an entire family. There are plenty of places you can rent these days that are cheap (Just looking on craiglist, I can see rooms for rent that someone can easily afford on minimum wage) and you can buy cheap food (Walmart is the cheapest in my area). It isn't ideal or easy, but it's not impossible. A bigger problem is the education of our citizens on life decisions that may cause difficult times for many years to come in their future. No amount of government regulation will solve these issues. The other problem is globalization. Many people here love the Internet and the freedom it brings, but it also brings competition from countries like China and India.

enraged_camel 14y ago
Is it because the employer isn't paying employees enough or is it because the employee made poor life decisions (had kids too early, didn't learn any marketable skills, etc)? WOW! This is not only textbook false dichotomy, but also a fundamental attribution error [1]. "Had kids too early" - what if their pregnancy was a result of rape, and they could not afford an abortion (or it was illegal in their state)? "Didn't learn any marketable skills" - what if they weren't born into a good family and didn't have the role models that could teach them what skills are marketable in the first place. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

ctdonath 14y ago

How moral is it to not earn a living wage, but expect others to supply it anyway?

Avshalom 14y ago
The Waltons' fortunes are built by our labor, unless you think they could staff ~9000 locations by themselves.
- ctdonath 14y ago
  Non-sequitur. The Walton's fortunes are built by trading for our labor, benefitting both. This does not obligate the Waltons to pay "living wages" where the value of one's labor does not rise to the cost of one's living expenses.
  - Avshalom 14y ago
    The point is that we are not asking Walmart to "supply" us with a living wage from somebody's personal bank account or that somebody else work harder so we can get paid more. The workers are already creating a value for the company significantly larger than what they see every two weeks. We are asking that Walmart/Employer-X give us a larger portion of our labor back.
    - ctdonath 14y ago
      So ask for a raise. A thing is worth only what another is willing to pay for it. If others are willing to do the same work for the objected-to price, you're asking too much. Of course the company gets more value out of the work than the employee. If it were just break-even, the question would be "why bother?" and either just not have the work done, or find a radically different way to get it done (say, hiring Roomba if the cost of human floor-sweepers gets too high). The great thing about employment is BOTH get more out than they put in - yes, that includes the employee working there instead of elsewhere for lower pay, or not being paid for not working anywhere. Sucks, yes, at times. Most of human history involved a lot of effort to eek out a meager existence. If you want more, you gotta do more that others are willing to pay more for. Oh, and yes - you ARE asking for a "living wage from somebody's personal bank account". The Waltons are people too.