[kelnos]

Ah, lovely, you're one of those people.

If you produce less value than the cutoff (whatever that means; wages are set based on how little a company can get away with paying, not on some arbitrary "value" you've assigned to the work), companies that employ you still have to pay you a living wage. Or not even, since minimum wage usually lags a living wage.

The funny thing is, I bet you're also the kind of person who is against welfare programs. So if the minimum wage didn't exist, people in these sorts of jobs would get paid so little that they'd end up on welfare. Not sure how that would be an improvement.

[eadmund]

> If you produce less value than the [minimum wage], companies that employ you still have to pay you

True enough, I suppose, but … if one produces less than one costs, a company will not employ one. Why would a company employ someone who produces less than he costs?

[tekknik]

the improvement here is in increasing skills, not paying someone more than the value they produce for the country, nor paying someone not producing any value.

welfare is great if your field is being phased out and you need retraining, or you’re disable or handicap but i loath people taking it when they simply don’t want to work and continue to have more kids that the state then pays for.

to help you understand this better let people move in with you and live off of your resources until you have none left for yourself. then don’t complain.

also insults aren’t allowed on HN