I think the employer makes a valid point. If they pay the employee a living wage while their competition does not, then they cannot compete.
This is where minimum wage comes into play! Minimum wage needs to be whatever a living wage is so the employer does not have to worry about what their competition is paying. Their employees.
If they pay the employee a living wage while their competition does not, then they cannot compete.
What is the employer’s lifestyle? How many millions does he or she have?
You’re setting up a false dichotomy of only two options - pay more and go out of business OR pay less and be competitive.
How about a third option? The third option is that the guy doesn’t need two yachts, he doesn’t need vacation homes, he doesn’t need
to be a billionaire while the rest of society suffers. So, take a pay cut and/or give your employers stock/profit sharing in the company.
Owners are quick to complain that labor is so expensive but will never work at their own business. “Oh but I own six restaurants, I couldn’t possibly work at each one, I have to spend my time “managing” all six!” Owning more than one business is the problem. If you want to own a business you need to work at that business. Physically.
I admit I don’t know how that looks for global megacorporations but I’m pretty sure the answer is we shouldn’t have allowed global megacorporations to exist.
The third option is that the guy doesn’t need two yachts, he doesn’t need vacation homes, he doesn’t need to be a billionaire while the rest of society suffers.
If you think the percentage of employers that fit this description is a number with more than one digit, you are completely delusional.
To your first point, I disagree. There’s a gas station chain that’s based out of Texas called Buc-ee’s. They post their wages where everyone can see them and they generally pay about double what the other gas stations in the area pay. Their gas is usually a bit less (I don’t think I’ve ever seen it higher) than nearby locations. Their bathrooms are fucking immaculate. The people I’ve known who work there are genuinely happy to work there.
They’re not perfect by any means, but they’re a good business. I’ve seen them packed full in the middle of the night on road trips so they’re getting customers. They’ve been doing this exact same thing for years. It’s perfectly possible to pay your people more and still compete.
Yep, another issue with the argument of the old lady is that it isn’t necessarily possible to sustain a productive business of a certain type. Often times that isn’t a big deal, but it can be a huge problem if it (for instance) isn’t sustainable to run a grocery store in an area.
When it’s a case of a necessary service, often it’ll be already disadvantaged people who are most affected. In my example case for instance, it’ll be in sparsely populated rural areas, or ones with high crime rates, where the government fails to appropriately change legislation in order to coubteract these issues.
I think the employer makes a valid point. If they pay the employee a living wage while their competition does not, then they cannot compete.
This is where minimum wage comes into play! Minimum wage needs to be whatever a living wage is so the employer does not have to worry about what their competition is paying. Their employees.
What is the employer’s lifestyle? How many millions does he or she have? You’re setting up a false dichotomy of only two options - pay more and go out of business OR pay less and be competitive. How about a third option? The third option is that the guy doesn’t need two yachts, he doesn’t need vacation homes, he doesn’t need to be a billionaire while the rest of society suffers. So, take a pay cut and/or give your employers stock/profit sharing in the company.
Owners are quick to complain that labor is so expensive but will never work at their own business. “Oh but I own six restaurants, I couldn’t possibly work at each one, I have to spend my time “managing” all six!” Owning more than one business is the problem. If you want to own a business you need to work at that business. Physically.
I admit I don’t know how that looks for global megacorporations but I’m pretty sure the answer is we shouldn’t have allowed global megacorporations to exist.
If you’re waiting on billionaire with a yacht to do the right thing, you’re going to be waiting a long time.
My point is that sometimes we need to force the hand of the employer to do the right thing.
If you think the percentage of employers that fit this description is a number with more than one digit, you are completely delusional.
I absolutely agree with your second point.
To your first point, I disagree. There’s a gas station chain that’s based out of Texas called Buc-ee’s. They post their wages where everyone can see them and they generally pay about double what the other gas stations in the area pay. Their gas is usually a bit less (I don’t think I’ve ever seen it higher) than nearby locations. Their bathrooms are fucking immaculate. The people I’ve known who work there are genuinely happy to work there.
They’re not perfect by any means, but they’re a good business. I’ve seen them packed full in the middle of the night on road trips so they’re getting customers. They’ve been doing this exact same thing for years. It’s perfectly possible to pay your people more and still compete.
Yeah, I was maybe being facetious when I said the first part.
I love Buc-ee’s too… I try to avoid it cause I end ups spending too much time and money in there.
As far as employers go, I understand they are pretty good.
But they are still using Styrofoam cups. And a lot of them. That’s absolutely absurd to me.
Or collective bargaining in the sector. Tesla is still running into strikes in Sweden because they don’t want to bargain.
Both
Yep, another issue with the argument of the old lady is that it isn’t necessarily possible to sustain a productive business of a certain type. Often times that isn’t a big deal, but it can be a huge problem if it (for instance) isn’t sustainable to run a grocery store in an area.
When it’s a case of a necessary service, often it’ll be already disadvantaged people who are most affected. In my example case for instance, it’ll be in sparsely populated rural areas, or ones with high crime rates, where the government fails to appropriately change legislation in order to coubteract these issues.
Supplying people with basic life necessities should not need to garner a profit.
This goes for food, water, shelter, but also electricity, healthcare, public transportation, and internet.
(Coincidentally, most of these are basic human rights.)
Society as a whole experiences net benefit (even am economic one) from those, so society as a whole should fund them.
Yes, this requires taxes.
@bort@sopuli.xyz has a decent explanation on why UBI can replace the minimum wage.
I’m perfectly happy with UBI as a replacement for minimum wage. But minimum wage is what we have now.