|
> If a company still has to hire a warm body to do that job, those employees are automatically not useless. If a company doesn't hire that warm body to breakdown cardboard boxes or drag around dust mops, then it is useless. Remember the donut hole welfare talking point in the 90s? That is what this is. > Every person who puts in 40 hours, no matter what their purpose, is entitled to a living wage. Says you, about an arrangement that doesn't involve you. You should be careful what you wish for, because you could easily get exactly what you are demanding - and be very unhappy for it. Here is how that could happen: massive coordinated campaign to shift the consensus position for an acceptable standard of living, with a catchy hook - "You'll own nothing, and be happy"; resulting in people eating bugs, sleeping in concrete tube "pods", getting paid a dollar an hour, and dying alone. |
This is something that was also said by the judge in the 1907 Australian Harvester Decision which set a set a ‘living’ or ‘family’ wage.
It was ruled to allow an unskilled labourer to support a wife and three children, to feed, house, and clothe them.
This became the basis of the national minimum wage system in Australia that persists to this day, that a minimum wage should allow a 40 hour work week to feed, clothe and house a worker and reasonable immediate dependants.
> resulting in people eating bugs, sleeping in concrete tube "pods", getting paid a dollar an hour, and dying alone.
Well, here we are in Australia, 115+ years on and this is still yet to happen.
Any ideas on when your predicted outcomes will kick in?