[toss1]

>> are disproportionately reliant on public assistance.

Whenever workers for a company are disproportionately reliant on public assistance, it means that the management has figured out a scam to get rest of the taxpayers to subsidize their business.

The taxpayers make up the difference between what is paid vs a living wage which would be required for those workers to sustainably work for the corp, and the management/shareholders pocket the difference.

[QuercusMax]

Absolutely. Companies like Walmart and McDonald's take advantage of this.

https://www.worldhunger.org/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxp...

[tick_tock_tick]

So what is your solution? We can clearly see from this whole article companies will just leave the market if you artificially force pay too high.

If they don't have that job at Walmart are they suddenly going to get one that means they don't need government assistance?

[QuercusMax]

If your business can't survive paying employees a living wage, you're closer to slavery than you are to a proper economic model - i.e. your business is unsustainable.

If your cost of raw materials is too high, you can't just stiff your suppliers or steal from them. Why should labor be any different?

[tick_tock_tick]

Labor/Employment requires two willing parties don't diminish slavery by claiming paying lower then a living wage is close to it; that's beyond bullshit and you know it.

You also avoided answering the question. What happens to these people now? You took away their job and now their quality of life is going to be even lower are you happy?

[toomuchtodo]

Increase taxes and put in place real social safety nets vs the Rube Goldberg machine of government subsidizing shareholders and businesses through underpaid labor? Perhaps an option some may not be a fan of, but an option as gig work and other industries relying on disadvantaged labor continues to be ground down by regulators.

[tick_tock_tick]

> Rube Goldberg machine of government subsidizing shareholders and businesses through underpaid labor?

You have it backwards here the government is forcing shareholders/businesses to subsidize labor. But in general yes I agree we should have some degree of a universal basic income and the government should get out of the minimum wage game.

Everyone gets enough to live; find someone willing to pay you if you want luxuries.

[toss1]

Solution 1: Reset the minimum wage the way it was originally designed (by 1950s Republicans), so that it pays a livable wage for one man working 40 hours to support a family of 4 above the poverty line. This is what built the middle class.

Solution 2: Tax any and all automation sufficiently to pay a Universal Basic Income above the poverty level so that people have options and do not need to work unless an employer makes it worth their while to undertake the commute, etc. Actual minimum wages may be lower, but the corp taxes will be higher.

Either way, we are the wealthiest society in the history of the planet. We CAN afford to treat everyone with dignity, which includes providing for their basic needs of food, housing, healthcare. Allowing some to exploit others in a coercive semi-slavery arrangement should not be an option.

Moreover, history shows that when distribution is required to be sufficient to build and maintain a robust middle class, the wealthy also get wealthier (because they have a base of customers). Massive economic inequality leads to overall lower growth, and a smaller pie for even the wealthy. It's a commons problem, and the wealthy aren't smart enough to solve it (although Henry Ford made a start with his idea that every one of his employees should be able to afford one of his cars — same principle)

[SauciestGNU]

I've always thought there should be a tax of some multiple of the dollar value of public assistance employees receive from every employer (so if a worker has multiple jobs and still takes public assistance, each employer would be liable for some multiple of the whole amount).

Government should know who is receiving public assistance, but keep it anonymous for the purposes of levying the tax, so employers can't retaliate/discriminate against those on public assistance.

If employers had to pay $10 in tax for every dollar an employee receives in public assistance, I suspect it would be cheaper to pay workers a living wage.

[SomewhatLikely]

What would this do that a minimum wage wouldn't do?

[SauciestGNU]

IDK but since legislating fair wages seems to not be feasible, this is something else to try.

[93po]

Companies leaving because they have an unsustainable business model isn't an argument for paying people less than a living wage. It's an argument for those businesses leaving or going bankrupt.

[sabarn01]

What is the other option. Welfare exists as is and is just part of the social services offered by the government. For a lot of poor people there isn't a job that will offer them a living wage because they don't have skills yet to demand that. Bad jobs are ways to show that you have the skills to be on time come in everyday ect. Bad jobs allow people to build skills at low risk to the employer so they can demand higher wages over time.

Not everyone can work a full time job and the government shouldn't get in peoples way of earning money however they see fit.

[QuercusMax]

Companies like Walmart and McDonald's take advantage of government assistance by not paying their employees enough to live on. And before you say that only teenagers should be working these minimum wage jobs - there aren't enough teens to work these jobs, especially during school hours. If you're employing people, you need to pay them enough - and if they can't live on the wages you pay, the company should foot the bill for the welfare, not the rest of the economy.

[sabarn01]

Companies pay what people will accept and what they can offer for a job. It has nothing to do with welfare. In fact if there was no welfare do you think people would demand more or less to work? My guess is much less.

[QuercusMax]

This race-to-the-bottom leads to what's essentially slavery. That's why we should not allow companies to pay such abusively low wages.

[sabarn01]

It's not abuse. Your imposing your standards on other people without their concent. People should be able to make whatever arrangements they find mutually beneficial. Uninvolved third parties shouldn't have a veto power over how people work.

[newfriend]

Not necessarily.

The barrier to earning income by working for Uber/Lyft is much lower than other jobs. Workers are not fungible. Some people make better employees than others. Those who are already on public assistance are more likely to be less reliable/capable.

If these folks could get a job with higher wages, wouldn't they already be doing that? Especially considering the freedom from forced scheduling that driving provides.

[tick_tock_tick]

I'm glad we've decided on the solution of them now having no job and still requiring public assistance..... What a great morally superior decision we've made on their behalf I'm sure they'll thank us.