this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2024
1537 points (98.4% liked)

Political Memes

5436 readers
3495 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago (6 children)

(I assume, because I can't fathom a criticism of paying someone more than the value their labor creates, therefore I'll just assume it's actually a value judgment of the person themself)

If the value a person's labor creates doesn't support their basic necessities even though they work full time, either things cost too much or that labor is undervalued. Anyone who does a job full time deserves to be able to cover their basic necessities.

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

Anyone who does a job full time deserves to be able to cover their basic necessities.

Okay, but I'd add also that no one should be forced to hire someone at a literal loss. After all, it's a business, not a charity.

And the fact is that there exist jobs that don't create enough value that it's possible to satisfy both of the above conditions. So what's the solution? This isn't such a simple problem to solve.

If you say 'fuck the employers, they have to pay a living wage, no matter how valuable the labor is', then new small business creation will be smothered to a standstill--no one is going to want to start a new small business if they're unable to attain the same 'living wage' they're forced to pay every employee, regardless of what they bring to the business.

And if you say 'fuck the workers, low/no minimum wage', it becomes much easier to exploit/intimidate individual workers into accepting unfairly low wages.

That's why I think the most effective system is something I heard of in a few countries, I forget which, where there is no minimum wage, BUT there is a lot of strong codified protection for things like unionization and collective bargaining, which enables the best possible compromises possible, in every industry (and for certain, compromise will be necessary to a degree, for the reason stated above). The result in those countries, as I recall, is that the median wage tends to be higher than what the 'baseline' minimum wage set by law would end up being. Another advantage is that it's much better finely-tuned to each individual industry/job, and also much better at reacting to changing circumstances, than the beauraucracy of legislation could ever hope to realistically match.

[–] ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Okay, but I'd add also that no one should be forced to hire someone at a literal loss. After all, it's a business, not a charity.

Then don't hire them. Done.

Problem solved?

Fix your business model? Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything.

And business owners complaining that nobody wants to work for scraps, that sounds like a business problem.

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The fact that your response to the dilemma of a particular job position creating less value than the minimum wage you intend to force upon it with "fix your business model" reveals a massive ignorance of what goes into starting a business, and of how thin profit margins are in the majority of small businesses.

You're unwittingly advocating for there to be insurmountable hurdles for starting new small businesses, which will inevitably result in megacorporations with deep enough pockets to eat those inflated costs (and having a lack of competition to the degree that they can easily mark up their product far beyond where they normally could without being punished for it, to more easily eat said costs) being the only ones employing anyone, because only they can afford it.

And then, invariably, the same 'advocates' will come along and complain about monopoly and lack of competition, oblivious to their own facilitation of that end result.

In short, your 'solution' is objectively foolish, and merits no serious consideration.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)