3 ms·
That argument doesn't work, b/c: You can always "create jobs" by lowering the salary. As others have noted, it simply results in people becoming dependent on s
by dan_bk 12y ago
That argument doesn't work, b/c: You can always "create jobs" by lowering the salary.
As others have noted, it simply results in people becoming dependent on social benefits (and this bill ends up being footed by the tax payer).
So: You are right if you think that the tax payer should subsidize business owners.
- fdr234rd22 12y agoThat is a trite and misleading argument. 89% of minimum wage workers don't live in poor households. To say that they are being subsidized because they are poor is simply dishonest. See my link above.
- KJasper 12y agoThose 11% isn't worth helping? And should be subsidized by the government?
- dfa333377777 12y agoWho said that? Why attack the minimum wage and not the EITC (which directly helps the poor)?
- ubernostrum 12y agoIn the United States, a family of four with a total household income of $23,851/yr. is "not poor". An individual with an income of $11,761/yr. is "not poor". If you believe an individual can survive on $11,761, or that a family of four can survive on $23,851, in a major city, I would identify that as a flaw in your positions.
- bakhy 12y agothe word "households" being key. i just noticed that the text you linked clearly states that in those households there need to be 2-3 workers (or one doing 2-3 jobs) for them to rise above the poverty line. if one would try to put a price on the lost free time, family interaction,.. these people could in fact be in a very tough situation, even though their bank account might not reflect it.