[tialaramex]

Also low minimum wages are actually just corporate welfare.

The gap between what a minimum wage job pays and what it costs to scrape by is covered by government or charity, if they didn't do that the workers would die, which means the jobs don't get done, so that means the resource spent by governments or charities as a result of a low minimum wage is a subsidy for the employer. Instead of paying what it costs they get it for cheaper to create a fiction of "employment".

[hellcow]

This right here. We should demand not to subsidize the richest companies in the world. The Walmart family can afford to pay their employees a living wage. Instead you and I pay for that in taxes, while they extract billions in profit and value from their business.

If anything we should be subsidizing small businesses to give a more level playing field against companies with global economies of scale.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> We should demand not to subsidize the richest companies in the world.

Not without overturning Dodge Bros vs Ford, I believe. The ruling created shareholder primacy, the privilege of shareholders to have maximum bites of the corporate apple. It rigidly protects shareholder (and by ext, executive) interests.

The never-ending wealth that flows from that - first buys politicians, then officials, judges and (eventually) every part of regulation & corporate oversight.

ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

[burgerguyg]

Have you actually looked at what Walmart pays? Even in areas where the minimum wage is still $7.25, they're paying nearly double as a starting wage. They raised their starting wage over $10 in 2017 and have consistently raised it even where they're not legally obligated.

Meanwhile, all raising wages in the current market does is implement a wealth transfer from businesses to landlords with minimum wage workers as the mules transporting the money.

If you let the housing supply remain this tight and just increase wages, you just bid up rents and make the most economically vulnerable fight over the insufficient supply of affordable units.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> what it costs to scrape by is covered by government or charity, if they didn't do that the workers would die

I take this to mean the assistance covers the gap to prevent death.

I would amend that to note the following: We can exist in a state of profound poverty w/o assistance for a very long time without dying. Persistent Hunger and crisis-level stress kills very indirectly; it commonly takes decades.

source: me + 5 kids. a decade of hunger-level poverty in a red state.

[inglor_cz]

This isn't so straightforward. I would argue that they have some effect on the customers as well.

In the US, fast food restaurants are remarkably cheap, which is probably caused by low wages as well. If the workers were paid Danish or Swiss wages, quite a non-trivial part of the US population would be no longer able to afford a visit.

Now there is a wider question if that wouldn't actually improve their health, but that is already a bridge too far from the conversation. Miserly wages of restaurant workers do make the restaurants themselves more affordable to the general public, and the customers seem to be content about it.

[Yeul]

The Netherlands has a lower minimum wage for people under 21. This is why you see a lot of teenagers working at McD.

A big Mac is still 5 eurodollars.

[SideQuark]

No, it's not corporate welfare. Min wage hikes mean those workers unable to add that much value don't have jobs anymore, are left out of a workforce and thus cannot gain skills, and now require actual welfare.

Requiring companies to pay more than value added by an employee simply fire those workers.

The purpose of govt is to provide assistance, and perhaps training, so those on min wage can gain experience and skills to move up.

Min wage is merely an entrance wage into jobs.