This question will require some explaining, so bear with me (I phrased it how I did because I wanted to emphasize one of the connections). I ask this here because economics seem to be a huge topic here, especially when it comes to certain schools of thought (not that I’m judging, you have your reasons).

So here is me trying to explain my question.

First, I must admit I find the concept of a minimum wage to be, for a lack of a better word, incomplete (weird? not well-oiled? I couldn’t find the word). While being based by the hour albeit not factoring in the amount of work done, I understand basic existence amounts to a certain etimated value, and you don’t want overhaggling, so a glass floor is made. But a glass floor can break under pressure. But I digress.

Anyways, I was talking to someone about the concept, and we started using analogies using letters in place of concepts: “W cannot pay X a certain amount of Y so in order to pay to live she goes to Z.”

It was one of those no-context moments, so our minds were drawn to a third friend who related to it platonically, this person wasn’t mentally compatible with most social groups, so then criminals (the Z) would come and say “come join us, we have the friends you’re looking for”.

He added, “police consider ‘bad crowds’ a huge problem, but nobody pays the involuntary loners any minimum due, no glass floor provided by the public sector, no nothing, and the wrong people get the upper hand here because they’re there to farm you while you just want someone to value you enough in a way that translates well to you, and our bedroom community becomes a gossip-cursed cesspool because there is no adhesive”. Should point out this isn’t a new thought process, in fact it’s relevant to me occupationally.

Promoters of universal basic necessities of Lemmy, why is there a lacking here? Is it not weird we (officially) have it out for one aspect but not the other?

  • @Rivalarrival
    link
    110 months ago

    “Minimum” should not be the only controlling condition affecting wages. We need a second point to properly establish a scale. While we do need a “minimum wage” and we do need to allow employers to pay their substandard workers as low as that minimum wage, we also need to pressure employers to pay at least a “living wage”. A business that generates profits by paying its typical workers below poverty wages unfairly competes with responsible businesses that pay living wages to their typical employees. We need fewer irresponsible, exploitative businesses, and more responsible, fair businesses.

    While we need “minimum wage”, we also need a higher, living, “standard wage”. While it should be legal to hire some “substandard” workers, and pay them “substandard” wages down to minimum in certain situations, that practice should be strictly limited, heavily regulated, and carry stiff fines for violations.

    “Standard wage” should be enough for a family of two full-time, standard-wage workers with two minor dependents to secure housing, food, utilities, transportation, medical, dental, educational, and all other essentials, without overtime or additional employment.

    Acceptable “Substandard” workers might be family members in a family-run business; students enrolled in accredited schools, receiving on-the-job training; “hobby” workers, whose financial needs are met without employment; other workers who receive significant, non-monetary benefits for casual labor. Nobody working for a “living” should be forced to compete with these “casual” workers performing “substandard” labor. Competition from “casual”, substandard laborers should not be setting industry baseline wages.