[babypuncher]

If a position cannot pay well enough for the employed to sustain themselves then it should not exist in the first place.

If there literally are not enough jobs that can pay sustainable wages to everyone in need, then we need to rethink how our economy works on a fundamental level.

A system that requires some portion of the population to go hungry or even homeless is ethically indefensible.

[surement]

Not sure how being unemployed is better than making a low wage in terms of being hungry or homeless. Are you just trying to advocate for communism?

[babypuncher]

I'm not saying that being unemployed is better than making an unlivable wage. I am saying both outcomes are unacceptable.

And I am not advocating for any specific solution, just saying that the current system does not work. I don't believe in false dichotomies. Being unhappy with capitalism does not automatically make one a communist.

[surement]

> both outcomes are unacceptable

What is the alternative? You can't pay someone more than they earn in revenue and minimum wage laws create an artificial price floor that causes everyone who would otherwise earn between above zero and the minimum to instead make zero.

The idea of a "living wage" is an worthless notion that assumes that the distribution of income by age and experience is not the one from the real world. In the real world, the more experience you have, the more money you make. The majority of low earners are simply young or at an early point in their careers. To rob them of entry level jobs by setting artificial price floors is what's unethical. Let them get low wage jobs while they still live at home or have roommates or don't live downtown SF instead of dictating that the world should be one of magical bounty and abundance where everyone can somehow work for "high" wages without price inflation for everything else making them effectively poor.

Being unhappy with capitalism is being in denial about the world having scarce resources.

[babypuncher]

> Being unhappy with capitalism is being in denial about the world having scarce resources.

Food and shelter are not scarce resources. In the United States, we have more empty homes than homeless people. Every day we throw away an obscene amount of food.

So again, I say any system that requires the existence of a class of people who cannot afford these things in order to function is morally untenable. Similar shitty arguments were made in defense of slavery 200 years ago.

Communism isn't the only possible answer. Welfare programs are a common solution. The way I see it though, welfare is just the taxpayer subsidizing unlivable wages. So why not cut out the tax middleman and make the employers pay livable wages to begin with? Either way, that money has to get moved from the top to the bottom.

[surement]

> I say any system that requires the existence of a class of people who cannot afford these things in order to function is morally untenable

As they say in game of thrones: "what kind of god would do that? - the one we've got"

If we're talking historically, it's not poverty that's out of place, it's wealth.

Paying "livable" wages, as subjective a definition as it is, means some people will be unemployed. Unless those wages are subsidized, that is, but then how is the wealth created and acquired for that? And how do you know that it wouldn't be put to better use elsewhere?

I worked for much less than the US minimum wage as a young adult and I managed to make it work until I was able to gain the skills to earn more. Had the minimum wage been what it is in many American cities today, I wouldn't have been able to work until I was 23, assuming I could've somehow gained useful experience without burdening myself with student debt. It's not like that option wasn't there, but I preferred to work for low wages and I do not regret it. I really don't see any good argument for preventing me from making that choice for myself. But that's what minimum wage laws do.