4 ms·

I have no criticism for people who take minimum wage jobs - they are stars because they have motivation and (often) a clear view of where they are going - so al

by bdfh42 13y ago

I have no criticism for people who take minimum wage jobs - they are stars because they have motivation and (often) a clear view of where they are going - so all power to your sister. The bug bear is that a very high percentage of the people earning minimum wage need state intervention to actually live. If minimum wage does not pay enough to pay rent and local taxes - plus a reasonable social security contribution (health insurance in the USA) then the job is being subsidised by the people earning just a little more (the tax payer?) - so this is a subsidy to the employer - often a very large one. I resent being asked to subside jobs where employers should be required to pay a living wage. I have no issue with the employees - only respect because they are doing their best in a tough market place.

notahacker 13y ago
What "very high" percentage? A single person working a 40 hour week for minimum wage can afford to live without unusual subsidies, even in London, unless you're going to abolish the NHS or introduce a poll tax. The many students working at McDonalds are certainly being heavily subsidised... and would be even if they weren't working at McDonalds or anywhere else. The minimum wage-earning family breadwinners whose incomes are heavily topped up with child benefits and housing benefits might be being heavily subsidised, but that's because their living costs far exceed those of more employable people, not because McDonalds (or the local shop that barely scrapes a profit most open hours) is underpaying them due to their subsidies. Cutting their benefits gives McDonalds incentive whatsoever to raise their pay, because there's no shortage of unemployed, unskilled people willing to cram into shoddy shared flats and work as many hours in the week as possible. I'm not a fan of corporate welfare like the Job Skills Agency paying a quarter of McDonalds' annual training budget, but there's no way you can prevent the existence of unskilled, un(der)employed people with few expenses dragging down the earnings of unskilled employed people that can't balance their budgets without subsidising them or auctioning off their kids.

by bdfh42 13y ago

notahacker 13y ago

What "very high" percentage? A single person working a 40 hour week for minimum wage can afford to live without unusual subsidies, even in London, unless you're going to abolish the NHS or introduce a poll tax. The many students working at McDonalds are certainly being heavily subsidised... and would be even if they weren't working at McDonalds or anywhere else. The minimum wage-earning family breadwinners whose incomes are heavily topped up with child benefits and housing benefits might be being heavily subsidised, but that's because their living costs far exceed those of more employable people, not because McDonalds (or the local shop that barely scrapes a profit most open hours) is underpaying them due to their subsidies. Cutting their benefits gives McDonalds incentive whatsoever to raise their pay, because there's no shortage of unemployed, unskilled people willing to cram into shoddy shared flats and work as many hours in the week as possible. I'm not a fan of corporate welfare like the Job Skills Agency paying a quarter of McDonalds' annual training budget, but there's no way you can prevent the existence of unskilled, un(der)employed people with few expenses dragging down the earnings of unskilled employed people that can't balance their budgets without subsidising them or auctioning off their kids.