Pretty much anything that falls under "essential jobs" during the pandemic fits the "in demand" label, and the vast majority of those pay low wages.
And no matter how easy it is for a company to replace a given worker in their job, no job should ever pay so little that the person in it cannot live on what they make from it.
Any business that cannot survive while paying its employees a true living wage does not deserve to exist, because it is offloading its costs onto the rest of us through the various social programs its employees depend upon to survive.
>Any business that cannot survive while paying its employees a true living wage does not deserve to exist, because it is offloading its costs onto the rest of us through the various social programs its employees depend upon to survive.
That's not true. The rest of us would have to pay those costs anyway. It's not like the person wouldn't exist, if they didn't have a job.
a) Business pays employee a living wage; taxpayers pay nothing for that person's survival
b) Business pays employee a less-than-living wage; taxpayers pay partially for that person's survival
c) Person has no job; taxpayers pay fully for that person's survival
(Note, of course, that this leaves off choice d) Person has no job, or does not make enough from their job to survive; for whatever reason, they also cannot obtain welfare, and they die.)
...I think that most people would agree that the best of these three is (a). In that situation "the rest of us" most certainly do not have to pay those costs.
Furthermore, I think the more important point than "the person would still exist if they didn't have a job" is "other, better jobs would still exist if that company folded due to unprofitability, or was never created in the first place".
People have an inherent right to life, liberty, and property.
Businesses are not some sacred abstract; they exist purely to support people. Any privileges they have (down to and including their existence), we grant them, and we can revoke from them if they are not fulfilling their fundamental purposes.
Depends on if B leads (via lower wages) to more of B to compete.
For example the government may say that to clean their facility, cleaning companies need to be able to do a, b, c and after that it all comes down to the price. Almost all of them can do a,b,c so they compete on price, on cleaning company is not paying taxes though so can offer lower prices and wins all deals, forcing all other companies to stop paying taxes to survive, and makes the whole trade in that area morally bankrupt.
If type b companies are not allowed to exist, the market will then be able to support more type a companies and may ultimately have less type c individuals. It may result in a net decrease of social services used.
It's a completely backwards way of thinking. A "business" or "entity" can afford to pay x for service y. If x is too low for you, don't take the job. That's it.
It's pure fantasy to assume every employer could pay a living wage. For example, take house cleaning. What if some pensioner can spare 30$/week to have their house cleaned. How are they supposed to pay a living wage? If somebody steps forward and says OK, I'll clean the house for 30$, fine. If not, tough luck. But to demand the pensioner should pay a living wage (like what, 2000$ or more to have their house cleaned), or call them evil for not paying enough, is backwards and absurd.
I would call yours the completely backwards way of thinking. Again, my thinking puts people at the center, not "businesses" or "entities", nor "money".
I don't call them evil for not paying enough.
I say they don't make enough to employ a cleaner as that cleaner's full-time job.