Exactly. Hence why strikes / walkouts are effective. No, dead wrong. The state's sole legitimate function is to create a legal/regulatory environment in which businesses can operate on a level playing field without causing undue harm to the people. Enough to meet basic necessities: food, shelter, clothing. But that does NOT mean an opulent mansion, imported caviar, and Sachs Fifth Avenue.
If a McDonalds worker makes 8 or 9 dollars an hour and they need food stamps just to get by, guess what, they aren't being compensated at the true market price. McDonalds and Walmart and every other corporate welfare leech knows this.
McDonald's doesn't want to pay more. Its customers don't want to pay more. And, apart from the state meddling, the employees would accept the market rate. Don't get me wrong: I don't think it's the state's place to address wages. But if it is to be done, the cost should be borne by all taxpayers. The market price is what the labor is worth. If the state wants it priced higher, the state should be responsible for the cost. Their own apartment? Roommates? Cell phone? Cable TV? A car?
They are if there are other workers who could take the job without food stamps. And there always are. Teenagers looking for an afterschool job, retirees, spouses looking for a second family income, etc.
If it's less than they need, then they cannot provide the labour. At that point, the business is unsustainable.
To reiterate what I said upthread: Capitalism survives on the exploitation of workers. @Paladin is delighted.
Fuck what they want. THEY ARE TAXPAYERS. Or should be, but fuckers like you keep giving them exemptions.
What the labor is worth can be defined in different ways though. How much that someone will work for? The price that a business will still hire people at if required to? The value those workers bring to the business? People often pretend that #1 is the only worth, however as you yourself pointed out in this thread that can be distorted, due to government support programs and the like. Companies being much larger and therefore having more bargaining power also means there isn't actually any negotiation.
That's how it's supposed to work in theory, but predatory employers are obviously going to take advantage of government subsidies when calculating how little they can offer their employees before those jobs become nonviable. Accepting the premise that a regular individual working full-time should still require and receive government benefits distorts the value of their labour downwards.
Well, yeah. While ultimately governed by supply & demand, the process of determining value (of labor or anything else) is not quite a straightforward "if A then B" equation. Lots of factors, lots of balance points, and, humans being humans, lots of needless complication and stupidity.
If a business is posting net profits at the end of the year, then somewhere along the line there are employees generating more value for the company than they're receiving back in the form of wages and benefits. When those same employees are depending on government assistance to survive, then then it's the employer that's the de facto benefits recipient, taking advantage of those benefits to to increase their bottom line. That's unsustainable. I've got no issue with governments increasing the minimum wage to minimize the number of full-time employees receiving government assistance. I see it as no different than imposing efficiency standards for other industries.
So how do you as a worker avoid being exploited? You don't work for that employer! If you accept inadequate wages you only enable that employer to keep on exploiting you as well as other workers. That will teach your employer a lesson because they obviously need workers to stay afloat. But here's the problem - there's always somebody who will do your job cheaper! But limiting or halting immigration is often viewed as racist, jingoistic & nationalistic. So can we can allow and encourage immigration but still raise the minimum wage to actually be a "living wage"? This would (most likely) mean the quality of the workers would be improved significantly, because now as an employer I am paying you double what you were making so you better be one awesome burger flipper! You better be working you ass off/fingers to the bone because I'm getting my money's worth one way or another. You can't work faster or better? Maybe those immigrants can, and now with an unlimited supply of them I'll only hire immigrants with a hard-wired great attitude and work ethic. Now we have another problem from discrimination & equal opportunity complaints and lawsuits. Just my 2 cents!
So in an economy where jobs are short and cheap labour is in abundance it's perfectly legitimate to set the bar as low as you like? Even if it means them living on the shop floor and being paid in bowls of rice?
40 years of Faith Based Economics has gutted the middle class. Now there are two types of jobs, highly skilled/highly paid and low wage service industry jobs. Those low wage service industry jobs aren’t for kids anymore.
Faith as in "let the free market sort it out, no one ever ends up homeless or below the breadline that way". Totally the right way to run a society whose purpose is to improve the human experience.
The market price for labor is the market price for labor. It rises to the price necessary to attract employees to the positions available. One person may not be able to survive sufficiently on $10/hour, while another can (a teenager who lives at home, a retiree, a spouse seeking a second family income, someone wanting a second job, etc.). All employees are not equally situated. If the job does not pay enough for you to live on, you should not accept that job.
So again, in a situation where there are sufficient potential employees to leave people working for food rations and sleeping in their work space that's ok by you?
Funny, I look at the household income distribution graph of the United States and don't see much bimodality. Looks like there are plenty of spots between 'gods' and 'clods.'
I suppose if someone were willing to accept such a job, though I imagine there would be few willing employees under such terms. Even McDonald's pays better than that.
Not to sound like a "lesser of two evils" guy but are those third world shitholes people are trying to escape from "improving the human experience?" Asking for a friend!
They're more often than not shitholes as a result of Western policy and "free markets". Your proudest moment was marching into a country and turning it into a shithole.
But an employer that pays better wages can't compete if you have a special subsidy rewarding low-paying employers.
No, you can't. Not if that's the "market price". You're reduced to a state where society has literally labelled you unworthy of the bare basics of life in the developed world. You're less than human and some cunt has decided the right of a company to increase it's share price is more important than you having food or clothes. You talk about "innate rights" but seem not to care about anything which isn't directly affecting you and wonder why people label you selfish. Those innate rights you are so tear wipingly proud of include luxuries such as your silly guns, but not the right for others less fortunate to even maintain their own biological functions and you wonder why people sneer at them and you for worshipping them.
