LogFAQs > #885784640

Zeus posted...

This just in: Wages cost businesses money.

Yes, that is what I said. Good job following me this far.

Zeus posted...

If you can't establish a personal value good enough to command a higher wage, you shouldn't be entitled to that wage and should be grateful to take whatever they offer.

This isn't about personal abilities, though. It's about the position itself, which employers designate as having a sub-living wage. If an individual working at a living wage doesn't generate enough revenue for the business to cover that wage, by all means, fire them, because that's not sustainable. But if the position itself cannot generate enough revenue to allow the employer to stay in business, the position should not exist. If that's not an option, then the employer can't afford to stay in business.

Again, if a position is necessary, then it is necessary for a person in that position to be able to live. This is not a cost that can be avoided. Then current paradigm is to pass off that deficit to the government, relying on welfare programs to shore up sub-par business ownership. That's not a great paradigm, because it exists as an inefficient half-measure between a livable wage and a basic guaranteed income. Either establish a livable minimum wage and refocus welfare efforts on supporting businesses that are struggling to maintain those wages (dramatically reducing administrative costs because there are much fewer employers than there are employees), or establish a basic guaranteed income such that minimum wage laws are no longer required to ensure that workers can live (also dramatically reducing administrative costs because it simplifies the welfare process).

Zeus posted...

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma

It's not really a false dilemma (even without getting into it technically being a trilemma). Those are the three options that exist, with the current paradigm of welfare being an inefficient, half-baked effort at #3. If people don't have enough money to live, they will die ("execute" being hyperbolic, but the underlying point is valid). The two options for paying people enough to live are to mandate that employers pay a livable wage, or to have a third party provide that living wage independent of employers. It really is that simple.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.