[subway]

I mean, I guess giving up and letting your family or yourself starve is an option.

For a lot of folks in low wage positions, the mere act of looking for an alternative puts their current wages in jeopardy. Their employer may decide they're now disloyal and sack them. They bring home less money because they have to spend unpaid time searching for a new gig -- they'd do it outside of work hours, but at some point you have to sleep and feed the kids, right?

[GhostVII]

Yea, so the company provides a significant benefit, because without them the person would starve. I don't see why any of that is the companies problem, should they pay people more money just to be nice? The governments job is to ensure that regulations allow people to switch jobs without putting their family in jeopardy by having unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc, not the companies job.

[coldtea]

>Yea, so the company provides a significant benefit, because without them the person would starve. I don't see why any of that is the companies problem, should they pay people more money just to be nice

Yes.

[Jabanga]

You want to compel people to be nice, by force of government?

[coldtea]

Better than compelling them to be selfish.

[Jabanga]

Of course, but that's not the alternative to what you propose.

[coldtea]

I think it is, that's the "free market" key value, going as back as Adam Smith (e.g. "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.").