"How incredibly petty and counterproductive is it to fuss that their pile of crumbs is bigger than ours? Put that energy elsewhere. Organize. Fight. Win." This is so spot on! The argument shouldn't be that others don't deserve a living wage; it should be that you deserve one too. Any employer that wants your time and labor should be willing to pay their employees enough to live on, not just barely survive.
This is so spot on! The argument shouldn't be that others don't deserve a living wage; it should be that you deserve one too.
Saying "everyone deserves a living wage" is not an argument. It's an assertion. The question remains: Why would everyone deserve a living wage?
There are other questions that would need to be answered too, such as: "What's a living wage anyway?", "What about the financial viability of paying everything twice the current minimum wage?" or "What about all the jobs that don't get created because some people are just not worth $15/h?"
The idea that we all "deserve" a "living wage" is comforting to people who are insecure about their ability to provide for themselves.
But what does it mean to deserve a certain salary and how can you determine how much it should be?
For example, how much did Steve Jobs deserve to be paid, for creating countless jobs all over the world and enabling countless business enterprises based on Apple's ecosystem of products and software? Did he get what he deserved? Who's to say?
Put simply, because everyone is a human being. We have the total wealth to provide for everyone's basic needs, but we don't do it because capitalism. Gotta scrape in every last dime for myself.
OK, so if employers have to pay you more because you're a human being, then I guess you'll have to pay more for goods and services because businesses are run by human beings too, and they Deserve more money than they get now too?
Businesses are not human beings, they are an idea. Businesses are run by human beings. Those human beings deserve the same basic rights as the people working for them. Anything extra is not a basic right. So no, businesses do not deserve more money.
Those human beings deserve the same basic rights as the people working for them.
Exactly! So the business-owner-human-beings Deserve to get paid much more than now, and therefore you have to pay double-price for their goods and services. That's fair and just.
Note that I don't actually believe that. I'm just trying to illustrate why the idea of workers "deserving" more because they're human beings makes no sense.
No, you're missing the point. There's a baseline that ALL human beings deserve. Food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, education, INTERNET ACCESS, etc. Anything on top of those basic necessities is a luxury. Business owners get all of that plus more. If the business fails, they deserve to lose those luxuries, but not the basic necessities.
Right now, workers do not get all of those things as a basic, guaranteed necessity. We're talking about bringing the bar up to the bare minimum.
Put even simpler, everyone deserves $10. Workers get $6. Business owners get $15. You're arguing that if workers get $4 more so that they get $10, then business owners deserve $4 to get $19. That's not how this works.
You're arguing that if workers get $4 more so that they get $10, then business owners deserve $4 to get $19. That's not how this works.
Yeah, that's not how that works, but that is how being objective would work. If everyone deserves more because they're human beings, then they all deserve equally more (regardless of whether they're the employer or the employed)
No, you are completely ignoring my point. Everyone does not deserve MORE, everyone deserves a BASELINE. We don't get more money until everyone's basic needs are met. When everyone's cup is full, then you can start buying more cups. The employers' cups are full right now and the employees' are not.
If everyone gets more at a flat, lump sum, it does nothing to change the inequality.
Not necessarily. Taxpayers already have to subsidize workers with an income below the poverty line through paying them welfare benefits. If the minimum wage were adjusted so that a full time independent worker making minimum wage would have earnings at just above the poverty line, in theory this would just shift the welfare cost from the taxpayers to employers. Taxpayers would pay less in taxes which would offset the increased cost of goods and services. I'm no economist, but it seems to me that it would be a wash.
I was just trying to illustrate why the idea of workers "deserving" more because they're human beings makes no sense.
But in general, we all want as much as possible for as little as possible. That includes employees and employers alike. That's why people and businesses get paid whatever they can get someone to voluntarily pay for their goods and services.
You bring up some useful questions but examine the opposite of the assertion (with some parameters interspersed): a person working fulltime at a job does not deserve to make wages above the welfare designated poverty level.
"How incredibly petty and counterproductive is it to fuss that their pile of crumbs is bigger than ours? Put that energy elsewhere. Organize. Fight. Win." This is so spot on! The argument shouldn't be that others don't deserve a living wage; it should be that you deserve one too. Any employer that wants your time and labor should be willing to pay their employees enough to live on, not just barely survive.
Saying "everyone deserves a living wage" is not an argument. It's an assertion. The question remains: Why would everyone deserve a living wage?
There are other questions that would need to be answered too, such as: "What's a living wage anyway?", "What about the financial viability of paying everything twice the current minimum wage?" or "What about all the jobs that don't get created because some people are just not worth $15/h?"
The business owners act according to their incentives too: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/06/mcdon...ounces-its-answer-to-15-an-hour-minimum-wage/
The idea that we all "deserve" a "living wage" is comforting to people who are insecure about their ability to provide for themselves.
But what does it mean to deserve a certain salary and how can you determine how much it should be?
For example, how much did Steve Jobs deserve to be paid, for creating countless jobs all over the world and enabling countless business enterprises based on Apple's ecosystem of products and software? Did he get what he deserved? Who's to say?
Put simply, because everyone is a human being. We have the total wealth to provide for everyone's basic needs, but we don't do it because capitalism. Gotta scrape in every last dime for myself.
OK, so if employers have to pay you more because you're a human being, then I guess you'll have to pay more for goods and services because businesses are run by human beings too, and they Deserve more money than they get now too?
Businesses are not human beings, they are an idea. Businesses are run by human beings. Those human beings deserve the same basic rights as the people working for them. Anything extra is not a basic right. So no, businesses do not deserve more money.
Exactly! So the business-owner-human-beings Deserve to get paid much more than now, and therefore you have to pay double-price for their goods and services. That's fair and just.
Note that I don't actually believe that. I'm just trying to illustrate why the idea of workers "deserving" more because they're human beings makes no sense.
No, you're missing the point. There's a baseline that ALL human beings deserve. Food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, education, INTERNET ACCESS, etc. Anything on top of those basic necessities is a luxury. Business owners get all of that plus more. If the business fails, they deserve to lose those luxuries, but not the basic necessities.
Right now, workers do not get all of those things as a basic, guaranteed necessity. We're talking about bringing the bar up to the bare minimum.
Put even simpler, everyone deserves $10. Workers get $6. Business owners get $15. You're arguing that if workers get $4 more so that they get $10, then business owners deserve $4 to get $19. That's not how this works.
Yeah, that's not how that works, but that is how being objective would work. If everyone deserves more because they're human beings, then they all deserve equally more (regardless of whether they're the employer or the employed)
No, you are completely ignoring my point. Everyone does not deserve MORE, everyone deserves a BASELINE. We don't get more money until everyone's basic needs are met. When everyone's cup is full, then you can start buying more cups. The employers' cups are full right now and the employees' are not.
If everyone gets more at a flat, lump sum, it does nothing to change the inequality.
I think I'll just go ahead and remove Snapzu and Hubski from my Firefox now.
Not necessarily. Taxpayers already have to subsidize workers with an income below the poverty line through paying them welfare benefits. If the minimum wage were adjusted so that a full time independent worker making minimum wage would have earnings at just above the poverty line, in theory this would just shift the welfare cost from the taxpayers to employers. Taxpayers would pay less in taxes which would offset the increased cost of goods and services. I'm no economist, but it seems to me that it would be a wash.
Um.. I wasn't being serious.
I was just trying to illustrate why the idea of workers "deserving" more because they're human beings makes no sense.
But in general, we all want as much as possible for as little as possible. That includes employees and employers alike. That's why people and businesses get paid whatever they can get someone to voluntarily pay for their goods and services.
You bring up some useful questions but examine the opposite of the assertion (with some parameters interspersed): a person working fulltime at a job does not deserve to make wages above the welfare designated poverty level.
Its a ludicrous statement.