LogFAQs > #885790906

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, Database 1 ( 03.09.2017-09.16.2017 ), DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	"I do not support a livable wage"
Zeus 08/31/17 3:31:51 PM #49:	adjl posted... This isn't about personal abilities, though. It's about the position itself, which employers designate as having a sub-living wage. If an individual working at a living wage doesn't generate enough revenue for the business to cover that wage, by all means, fire them, because that's not sustainable. But if the position itself cannot generate enough revenue to allow the employer to stay in business, the position should not exist. If that's not an option, then the employer can't afford to stay in business. If you can live on a wage, by definition it is a living wage. The issue is the expectation that you're entitled to a work week not exceeding 40 hours, which is a relatively new concept dating back less than a 100 years. And if your labor has virtually no value and the expertise is so low that a monkey can be trained to do your job, you can't command good wages. Keep in mind that there are countless jobs in this society which are absurdly low-rung, low-skilled, etc, yet they offer wages well in excess of the minimum. It's not like even unskilled labor can't do better than minimum. As for your argument about firing somebody, you acknowledge that employment is a contract about usefulness but somehow ignore the fact that it should extend to wages. If you're not useful enough to command a higher wage, you shouldn't receive that wage. More importantly, the minimum wage makes some people with poor (or no) work records unhirable. adjl posted... It's not really a false dilemma (even without getting into it technically being a trilemma). Those are the three options that exist, with the current paradigm of welfare being an inefficient, half-baked effort at #3. If people don't have enough money to live, they will die ("execute" being hyperbolic, but the underlying point is valid). The two options for paying people enough to live are to mandate that employers pay a livable wage, or to have a third party provide that living wage independent of employers. It really is that simple. Except it is a false dilemma. First, because the minimum wage is already livable provided you reasonably cut costs (roommates, etc). Second, and more importantly, because the thing is predicated on the 40 hour workweek. If somebody doesn't make what they need in 40 hours, what do they usually wind up doing? They work more. Even a lot of people who don't necessarily need the money often choose to work more. Coincidentally, raising the minimum wage often has the effect of REDUCING workweeks which makes things LESS livable for workers. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-seattle-minimumwage-idUSKBN19H2MV --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:885790906] in "I do... [t:75697224]...</cite> <quote><cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote> This isn't about personal abilities, though. It's about the position itself, which employers designate as having a sub-living wage. If an individual working at a living wage doesn't generate enough revenue for the business to cover that wage, by all means, fire them, because that's not sustainable. But if the position itself cannot generate enough revenue to allow the employer to stay in business, the position should not exist. If that's not an option, then the employer can't afford to stay in business. </quote> If you can live on a wage, by definition it is a living wage. The issue is the expectation that you're entitled to a work week not exceeding 40 hours, which is a relatively new concept dating back less than a 100 years. And if your labor has virtually no value and the expertise is so low that a monkey can be trained to do your job, you can't command good wages. Keep in mind that there are countless jobs in this society which are absurdly low-rung, low-skilled, etc, yet they offer wages well in excess of the minimum. It's not like even unskilled labor can't do better than minimum. As for your argument about firing somebody, you acknowledge that employment is a contract about usefulness but somehow ignore the fact that it should extend to wages. If you're not useful enough to command a higher wage, you shouldn't receive that wage. More importantly, the minimum wage makes some people with poor (or no) work records unhirable. <cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>It's not really a false dilemma (even without getting into it technically being a trilemma). Those are the three options that exist, with the current paradigm of welfare being an inefficient, half-baked effort at #3. If people don't have enough money to live, they will die ("execute" being hyperbolic, but the underlying point is valid). The two options for paying people enough to live are to mandate that employers pay a livable wage, or to have a third party provide that living wage independent of employers. It really is that simple.</quote> Except it is a false dilemma. First, because the minimum wage is already livable provided you reasonably cut costs (roommates, etc). Second, and more importantly, because the thing is predicated on the 40 hour workweek. If somebody doesn't make what they need in 40 hours, what do they usually wind up doing? They work more. Even a lot of people who don't necessarily need the money often choose to work more. Coincidentally, raising the minimum wage often has the effect of REDUCING workweeks which makes things LESS livable for workers. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-seattle-minimumwage-idUSKBN19H2MV --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1