Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by tick_tock_tick 819 days ago
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?

4 comments

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?

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?

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.
> 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.

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)

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.

What would this do that a minimum wage wouldn't do?
IDK but since legislating fair wages seems to not be feasible, this is something else to try.
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.