[pequalsnp]

The problem that arises is that if you artificially inflate someone's wages to an arbitrary number like 21/hr, they might not provide enough value to economically justify the wage level they're set at.

It's not, and shouldn't be, an emotional argument. It's an economical one.

[morvita]

Frankly, I don't care about any economic argument that says people shouldn't have the ability to put food on their table, a roof over their head, and have decent healthcare. Any company that cannot be profitable and pay their employees enough to cover basic needs shouldn't exist as a company.

[dymk]

They can go find a different job that pays more. Uber driving is not skilled labor. How it’s justified as a 21/hr job I don’t understand.

[morvita]

I genuinely don't know how to explain that the fact it requires an income of more than 21/hr to meet basic needs is all the justification that should be required.

Maybe if we stopped thinking of employees/contractors as "labor" and thought of them as people it would be easier to empathize with their needs. Do you think that your friends, family, and loved ones deserve a wage that meets their basic needs? Why shouldn't all humans deserve the same?

[dymk]

It only requires that amount if you’re intent on living in the most expensive cities in the entire country.

[F147H34D]

Yes. All of the Uber drivers and other unskilled labor should move to Montana. That would be super helpful for those needing rides in SF.

[dymk]

Uber was never a career, it was a side gig.

[behringer]

Or if you'd like to see a doctor sometimes.

[toephu2]

That's not how capitalism works and that's not why companies exist. Companies pay you what you worth to them. A company is not a human, it doesn't care whether you have a family and are struggling or not.

The primary purpose of a business is to maximize profits for its stakeholders.

[behringer]

Then the answer is simple, if we want humanism in the way we deal with employees, than businesses that seek to maximize profits for their stakeholders should be outlawed.

[behringer]

Why should skilled laborors be able to raise a family and not unskilled? Like what makes educated people more valuable as human beings?

[dymk]

Almost anybody is able to become a skilled laborer :) all it takes is time and effort.

[behringer]

And a skilled laboror doesn't deserve more than 60-100k/year or more than? Why should everybody's pay be the same or decreasing and not CEOs and VCs?

[dymk]

You should be paid what the market says you’re worth, which is exactly what you can negotiate to be paid.

[moogly]

We can't all be skilled labourers. Who will perform all the unskilled labour that's needed for society not to grind to a halt?

[malandrew]

> Like what makes educated people more valuable as human beings?

On average, educated people contribute more value to the functioning of society. I can drive myself around. I can't perform my own heart surgery.

The argument that all humans are inherently equally valuable is specious reasoning. I can come up with all sorts of trolly car conundrums that if you were forced to choose, you'd make a value judgement about which person to save because they have more value.

[behringer]

We have enough money to make sure everyone can have a home, medicine, and food and water, even if you just drive a cab all your life.

[malandrew]

Yes, but not any home wherever they want to live by themselves and not any medicine or medical treatment available.

Some things are scarce resources and should be priced accordingly.

[fwip]

Maybe instead of arguing about who deserves to get hit by the trolley, we should be changing the system that is tying people to the tracks.

[malandrew]

> Any company that cannot be profitable and pay their employees enough to cover basic needs shouldn't exist as a company.

There are many ways to cover your basic needs that don't require you to live on your own in a one-bedroom apartment and three square meals a day. In fact, most of humanity survived by pooling resources. The ability to live entirely on your own being common is a very recent phenomena as is three square meals a day.

All your stating is that people shouldn't have options where they can pool resources. As someone supporting two older adults in my household, you're saying that if they can't get hold a livable wage jobs (unlikely given that one has Parkinson's) but still still could earn money and contribute to the household. You've not made my circumstances harder by legislating away opportunities for them to contribute.

[scarface74]

Why should a company be responsible for healthcare? It’s not the case anywhere else in the world?

[davinic]

Because that's the system under which we live.

Healthcare should be provided to all by the government for free, but until then we must live under the system.

[scarface74]

So instead of complaining about a company should provide health benefits, complain about the government.

[dzamie]

Advocating an increased minimum wage is complaining about the government.

[scarface74]

Do you think that everyone deserves “a livable wage” - even my 17 year old son staying at home flipping pizza?

[behringer]

The CEO of walmart most certainly isn't worth 22 million/year. If you can't bring in 21/hour as a cab driver you probably shouldn't be driving cab, especially considering you should be pulling in, what, well over 100/hr gross?

[pequalsnp]

What evidence do you have that the CEO doesn't bring that much in value to Walmart?

[behringer]

"Bad managers cost just as much as good managers."

https://investorplace.com/2018/07/are-ceos-really-worth-what...

See also: https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-companies-pay-ceos-for-good...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/16/the-highe...

[tryptophan]

These articles present an incredibly naive analysis of the situation. The logic is "high pay should equal high stock performance" but this fails to recognize that in an effecient market the ability and salary of the ceo would already be priced into the stock, and thus would have "no effect" on its performance. You can't prove that the stock would've done less-worse if a different (lower paid) ceo was there, which is essentially what these articles try and argue.

[pequalsnp]

I CTRL+F'd for Walmart in each article but didn't find anything. I thought that was the topic of discussion?

[behringer]

You're mistaken

[smileysteve]

The economic argument however, also includes taxes, the welfare state, etc;

If a job pays less than the cost of living in an area, then the job is somewhere between subsidized by the government or not economically viable.