There shouldn’t be a minimum wage! The free market should decide!
If everyone had a baseline standard of living, capitalists could pay whatever they wanted. And if their proposed wage wasn’t worth doing, then no one would do it.
Unskilled labor does not have the luxury to just “not do it”. The capitalists know this, which is why they depress wages as far as they can to keep an entire class of workers under water.
If I were to lose my job, which can happen at any time working in a non-union shop in an at-will state, I would not be able to go anywhere and receive comparable wages in my area. I am studying to get certifications in a different industry that would give me some amount of freedom. For now, I work at the mercy of my employer.
The free market is a scam. It will take massive changes, paradigm shifts, to create an environment where the workers are free to go work where they choose, and be given actually competitive compensation.
Unskilled labor as in, I do not have any degrees or certifications that I can simply take to a new employer to leverage anything above starting at the bottom. This will almost always mean making less money. At-will employment mixed with unequal application of company rules and policy means that any day at work could be my last. Unemployment checks are a joke, and would not even cover my rent.
It’s really not, there’s jobs out there that can be learned in a week on the job, and people who don’t have any qualifications to do much else. If you’re one of those, you’re a special kind of fucked, because you’re among the easiest people to replace.
There’s trained and highly trained labor. All labor takes some degree of education and training, but some labor takes more dedication than that, such as medicine.
But you’re only obligated to work under the threat of illegal homelessness. That’s not a free market, that’s coercion.
If your basic needs were guaranteed, then unskilled labour especially would dictate the value of work in a truly free market. And if you truly can’t find a job that will satisfy your desired lifestyle, you won’t die or be imprisoned or suffer from illness.
How would my basic needs be guaranteed? If the government is going to provide the social safety nets they owe to us, then why not have them regulate labor, providing basic labor needs being guaranteed? Unions would be great, but there will be plenty of businesses that will not have them. Why not provide a safety net to the workers who will inevitably fall between the cracks?
The government shouldn’t be providing safety nets, it should be maintaining the floor to ensure all citizens’ basic needs are met. There should be no “what ifs”.
The labour needs are already met, and would continue to be met in a free market where labour was optional for the labourer because people have wants. If you believe the government would need to ensure that labour needs are met, you’re believing the capitalist lie that foundational labour must be bought under threat of violence.
That only works if there is a social safety net, or every worker needs to have 6 months worth of savings. Otherwise it’s accepting a low wage vs no food, no house making barely a living. Which would you choose?
There shouldn’t even be a minimum wage, let the free market decide!
And it did, sadly. 2/3 of the US states still use the federal minimum wage as a guide, even though it doesn’t even purchase a cup of coffee these days.
No they didn’t, they specifically said workers might accept lower than minimum wage if walmart was allowed to give them expired food in liu of meeting minimum wage, and that somehow this will give workers more leverage and not less. They say they want strong unions, but only mention policy that would help the union’s enemy. Whether they know it or not, they’re a rightwing libertarian trying to pretend blatantly antiworker policy somehow helps workers.
Why wouldn’t walmart cut wages further if allowed to?
If it wasn’t literally illegal they wouldn’t even pay real money. We know this because its what companies did in the past.
The existence of millions of sub-livable wage jobs isn’t going to make walmart increase its wages, I feel like you’re trying to bend reality to pretend removing restrictions on capitalists exploiting workers somehow helps workers.
Either because unions force them or because better jobs are available.
And you think removing minimum wage would cause unions to become stronger and better jobs be made available?
The market must be turned to the advantage of the workers.
This is done by forcing the capitalists to operate on our terms, not letting them exploit workers with even less regulation wtf?
Sub-livable doesn’t help. But if sub-mimimum wage comes with a better package, e.g. child care or health coverage or short commute, then it creates a livable competing option that forces Walmart to rise wages.
A company giving its employees expired food instead of money isn’t going to make other companies increase wages.
With enough jobs nobody has to work for sub-minimum wage unless it’s to their advantage.
??? People are already forced to work for unsustainable wages and end up in debt or working while homeless.
It really feels like you started out with the assumption that capitalism is the best possible solution for everybody and then went backwards to figure out why this isn’t matching observations.
You’re operating on the false premise that a decent wage and decent working conditions are mutually exclusive and that is the primary flaw in your entire argument.
This is how Sweden works and why Sweden has been blocking an EU minimum wage. The unions are supposed to ensure reasonable wages and working conditions, which they have done for the most part.
Yeah, well, I’m no communist! There shouldn’t even be a minimum wage, let the free market decide!
— Temporarily inconvenienced billionaires at my workplace.
There shouldn’t be a minimum wage! The free market should decide!
If everyone had a baseline standard of living, capitalists could pay whatever they wanted. And if their proposed wage wasn’t worth doing, then no one would do it.
Unskilled labor does not have the luxury to just “not do it”. The capitalists know this, which is why they depress wages as far as they can to keep an entire class of workers under water.
If I were to lose my job, which can happen at any time working in a non-union shop in an at-will state, I would not be able to go anywhere and receive comparable wages in my area. I am studying to get certifications in a different industry that would give me some amount of freedom. For now, I work at the mercy of my employer.
The free market is a scam. It will take massive changes, paradigm shifts, to create an environment where the workers are free to go work where they choose, and be given actually competitive compensation.
Unskilled labor is a myth created by the ownership class.
Unskilled labor as in, I do not have any degrees or certifications that I can simply take to a new employer to leverage anything above starting at the bottom. This will almost always mean making less money. At-will employment mixed with unequal application of company rules and policy means that any day at work could be my last. Unemployment checks are a joke, and would not even cover my rent.
What would you call that?
Labor
It’s really not, there’s jobs out there that can be learned in a week on the job, and people who don’t have any qualifications to do much else. If you’re one of those, you’re a special kind of fucked, because you’re among the easiest people to replace.
There’s trained and highly trained labor. All labor takes some degree of education and training, but some labor takes more dedication than that, such as medicine.
But you’re only obligated to work under the threat of illegal homelessness. That’s not a free market, that’s coercion.
If your basic needs were guaranteed, then unskilled labour especially would dictate the value of work in a truly free market. And if you truly can’t find a job that will satisfy your desired lifestyle, you won’t die or be imprisoned or suffer from illness.
How would my basic needs be guaranteed? If the government is going to provide the social safety nets they owe to us, then why not have them regulate labor, providing basic labor needs being guaranteed? Unions would be great, but there will be plenty of businesses that will not have them. Why not provide a safety net to the workers who will inevitably fall between the cracks?
The government shouldn’t be providing safety nets, it should be maintaining the floor to ensure all citizens’ basic needs are met. There should be no “what ifs”.
The labour needs are already met, and would continue to be met in a free market where labour was optional for the labourer because people have wants. If you believe the government would need to ensure that labour needs are met, you’re believing the capitalist lie that foundational labour must be bought under threat of violence.
That only works if there is a social safety net, or every worker needs to have 6 months worth of savings. Otherwise it’s accepting a low wage vs no food, no house making barely a living. Which would you choose?
The free market assumes abundant choice and perfect information. And that’s why we have monopolies and massive marketing to counter that.
And it did, sadly. 2/3 of the US states still use the federal minimum wage as a guide, even though it doesn’t even purchase a cup of coffee these days.
Just say the billionaires are communists
You, I like.
Removed by mod
This is a person who thinks society would be better if stores gave workers expired food instead of money.
They meant the food as a bonus, not in place of living wages, which is what they want with unions and healthy worker benefits we all deserve.
No they didn’t, they specifically said workers might accept lower than minimum wage if walmart was allowed to give them expired food in liu of meeting minimum wage, and that somehow this will give workers more leverage and not less. They say they want strong unions, but only mention policy that would help the union’s enemy. Whether they know it or not, they’re a rightwing libertarian trying to pretend blatantly antiworker policy somehow helps workers.
Removed by mod
Why wouldn’t walmart cut wages further if allowed to?
If it wasn’t literally illegal they wouldn’t even pay real money. We know this because its what companies did in the past.
The existence of millions of sub-livable wage jobs isn’t going to make walmart increase its wages, I feel like you’re trying to bend reality to pretend removing restrictions on capitalists exploiting workers somehow helps workers.
Removed by mod
And you think removing minimum wage would cause unions to become stronger and better jobs be made available?
This is done by forcing the capitalists to operate on our terms, not letting them exploit workers with even less regulation wtf?
A company giving its employees expired food instead of money isn’t going to make other companies increase wages.
??? People are already forced to work for unsustainable wages and end up in debt or working while homeless.
It really feels like you started out with the assumption that capitalism is the best possible solution for everybody and then went backwards to figure out why this isn’t matching observations.
Removed by mod
You argument is that I should take a pay cut, and all I have to do is lower my material conditions.
You are trending toward slavery. Get your fucking head checked.
Removed by mod
You’re operating on the false premise that a decent wage and decent working conditions are mutually exclusive and that is the primary flaw in your entire argument.
Removed by mod
What is this far right dreck doing in this com?
This is how Sweden works and why Sweden has been blocking an EU minimum wage. The unions are supposed to ensure reasonable wages and working conditions, which they have done for the most part.