🇳🇱
Sure, as long as that rent is a shared room, and the groceries consist of chicken every night... which you can off a minimum wage job.
@freemo @MikeDunnAuthor Minimum wage is supposed to be a living wage. Frankly, food and housing should be freely available to all, but at an absolute fucking minimum, a person working full time should be able to afford their own place and decent food, which is completely impossible at min wage in the US right now. Fuck the protestant work ethic and the religious fanatics it rode in on.
> Minimum wage is supposed to be a living wage
and it shouldn't be, thats the point. It disproportionately harms the poorest least skilled of the work force, it shouldnt exist at all, let alone act as a living wage.
> Frankly, food and housing should be freely available to all
Absolutely agree it should be, and minimum wage should also be abolished.
> but at an absolute fucking minimum, a person working full time should be able to afford their own place and decent food
Only if that full time is **worth** decent food and your own place. People deserve food and an education to be able to gaint he skills to be worth a home and decent food, it is not the obligation of anyone paying someone money to do a task to provide that. It is the governments responsibility to create a healthy economy and valuable workers through access to free education, training, and sometimes welfare.
> which is completely impossible at min wage in the US right now
Entirely possible, for people who are skilled enough to be worth the income needed to afford these things. The fact that many people exist who do not have sufficiently marketable skills is the problem needing solving, not minimum wage.
> Fuck the protestant work ethic and the religious fanatics it rode in on.
Has nothing to do with work ethic, bother understanding a persons position first.
@freemo @rootfake @MikeDunnAuthor how abolishing minimum wage will amek the situation any better? Minimum wage doesn't limit employer from paying more but only paying less.
Because we already know from the data that minimum wage causes the poorest least skilled to not be able to find work, typically replaced by more skilled individuals. You can see the attached graph from a peer reviewed journal demonstrating this.
In addition to the data clearly showing this fact, its also common sense. Companies hire people based on the value they provide. If you dont provide enough value to be worth your wage, you wont get a job. Setting a minimum wage just makes it illegal to hire people who do not produce value great enough to be worth their hourly rate. The end result is you effectively make it illegal to hire the least skilled in society, forcing people who are already desperate and need work, and who dont make enough to loose their job entirely and be unhirable, effectively causing them to starve to death.
Obviously that is not a solution, it only makes their situation worse. Both the established scientific data, as well as just basic common sense clearly shows this.
Now how do you actually solve the problem, easy, the state pays to get these people an education or training to actually make their value high enough they are hireable at a living wage.
@freemo @aiono @rootfake @MikeDunnAuthor
Wow, I had not known about this correlation.
I know that too-low minimum wage can serve as an excuse to pay people less than they actually need. I also think that not having minimum wage can get some people taken advantage of (if you're desparate enough you'll work for any amount).
So some of those extra employed with low MW are probably flippin' miserable.
Hypothesis: removing MW *while also providing means to meet basic needs for everyone* should make for a better solution. Removing MW *with no further support* may well create a (not so) new type of slavery.
> I know that too-low minimum wage can serve as an excuse to pay people less than they actually need. I also think that not having minimum wage can get some people taken advantage of (if you're desparate enough you'll work for any amount).
This is certainly true, if you have no minimum wage some people will be paid far below a living wage. But its important to understand that it isnt a companies obligation to pay you a living wage, its the governments responsibility to keep the markets and populace in a state where people earn a living wage. More importantly it isnt even about "who is responsible" so much as it is about what the reality is. As we covered when you raise minimum wage these people dont just get paid more, they just become unhirable. Have you solved anything by taking the people who would not earn a living wage and only earn, lets say, a nickle an hour, and now just forcing them to be fired and have no job at all? A nickle an hour is better than 0. Thats the problem, you arent actually making anyone get a living wage, your just making sure the people who cant get a living wage now have no job at all, how is that a step in the right direction?
> So some of those extra employed with low MW are probably flippin' miserable.
Less miserable than they would be without a job at all.
> Hypothesis: removing MW *while also providing means to meet basic needs for everyone* should make for a better solution. Removing MW *with no further support* may well create a (not so) new type of slavery.
We obviously agree the only real answer is ensuring people have good welfare before removing MW. However removing MW with no further support means now you have people who make 0 making **something**, sure its a shitty something, but something means they eat, nothing means they die. It may not be a great scenario but it is absolutely better than having minimum wage, or do you think just letting those people make 0 and starving to death is osmehow an improvement over a nickle an hour wage?
@freemo @Mr_Teatime @rootfake @MikeDunnAuthor Abolishing MW can be better for the short term yes. But is it satisfactory? Hell no. Why spend arguing so much about abolishing MW if it doesn't even lead to sustenance? I think instead we can focus on more effective policies that would lead to livable wage for all.
Abolishing MW leads to the poorest people most in need with work and the ability to feed themselves more so than with MW in existent. It provides real, material, positive results, thats why.
That fact that it is only a **step** in the right direction and an improvement but not a full solution is a horrible reason not to promote this.
@freemo @aiono @rootfake @MikeDunnAuthor
afaict abolishing MW will likely lead to most people who are currently on MW getting pay cuts. With some delay, it will then lead to some currently-unemployed people finding work at even lower wages.
How many "some" are, I can't tell, so I don't think there's a clear argument either way.
That could be different if it was certain that everyobe withkut a job is able to get by alright. Which would also increase the bargaining power of workers at the lower end of the payscale, thus increase wages, independent of minimum wage laws (and thus make this debate unnecessary)
> afaict abolishing MW will likely lead to most people who are currently on MW getting pay cuts. With some delay, it will then lead to some currently-unemployed people finding work at even lower wages.
No, because those people are paid that minimum wage because their skills make them give as much back as value. So no it doesnt work that way, nor is there any evidence to suggest it does.
> How many "some" are, I can't tell, so I don't think there's a clear argument either way.
The chart I provided shows exactly what that number is. A 50% increase in minimum wage would result in 50% increase in the number of people with no high school diploma being unemployed. You dont need to guess you have a peer reviewed study telling you. The relationship is linear, so when you double minimum wage you double the number of people who dont have a job (among those without diplomas). For those with a high school diploma the increase is only slightly smaller.
@freemo @Mr_Teatime @rootfake @MikeDunnAuthor
> No, because those people are paid that minimum wage because their skills make them give as much back as value. So no it doesnt work that way, nor is there any evidence to suggest it does.
A quick search led me to this
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/001979399204600104
What exactly were you search terms that lead to this 40 year old paper? What made you think this 40 year old paper was a more credible source than the much more modernly sourced data I provided?
Do you know what its called when you search for something to agree with your biases and provide the first paper that seems to do so? Does that sound like someone trying to persue the truth, or trying to argue their agenda?
