4 ms·

Shareholders have no greater responsibility to pay living wage, than you have a responsibility to top up the income of some randomly selected low-income person.

Shareholders have no greater responsibility to pay living wage, than you have a responsibility to top up the income of some randomly selected low-income person. Let me ask you a question: where does the moral responsibility to pay higher than market wages come from? When I started my work, I had no doubts that my employer would rather pay less than more. However in my case there was competition for my skills that drove up the price of my labor. In the case of people earning minimum wage, there is not enough competition to drive the price above minimum wage. But in both cases the market is setting the price, and I don't see how the term exploitation applies to either. The fact that some people don't have the ability to earn more than minimum wage is a property of those people, not their employees. And the appropriate response is to transfer money to them via the tax/benefit system.

ronaldx 13y ago
For as long as high unemployment results in a lack of competition for labour, and for as long as welfare is insufficient to cover a person's needs, people are obligated to take whatever employment is available. People are obligated to take employment even if that's at a far lower wage than the value of what they are offering. I am satisfied to describe this type of employment as exploitation. If a corporation makes an increased profit only by using the fact that its employees are in a very poor negotiating position and cannot refuse employer demands, I would be satisfied to call that unethical. Normally, people would call sweatshops unethical - on the same basis. I believe that corporations and already-wealthy shareholders both shoulder moral responsibility for that. Current economic conditions have converged to a point where [minimum wage] employees have almost zero negotiating position. I agree with you that this needs to be better addressed by politicians - partly, but not only, in the tax/benefit system - but I don't observe that it is being addressed.

ronaldx 13y ago

For as long as high unemployment results in a lack of competition for labour, and for as long as welfare is insufficient to cover a person's needs, people are obligated to take whatever employment is available. People are obligated to take employment even if that's at a far lower wage than the value of what they are offering. I am satisfied to describe this type of employment as exploitation. If a corporation makes an increased profit only by using the fact that its employees are in a very poor negotiating position and cannot refuse employer demands, I would be satisfied to call that unethical. Normally, people would call sweatshops unethical - on the same basis. I believe that corporations and already-wealthy shareholders both shoulder moral responsibility for that. Current economic conditions have converged to a point where [minimum wage] employees have almost zero negotiating position. I agree with you that this needs to be better addressed by politicians - partly, but not only, in the tax/benefit system - but I don't observe that it is being addressed.