this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2024
1534 points (98.4% liked)
Political Memes
5429 readers
1337 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's easy to shit on everything, so I'll try to avoid doing that.
I do genuinely not understand the blind "minimum wage should be this" angle. All raising the minimum wage does is raise expenses for everything. It's pretty much like fuel costs: price of fuel goes up - your bakery, pharmacy, grocer, etc all raise prices and in the end it is those on the lowest income that get impacted the most.
A bit of a mind dump:
ownership is shared, everyone is equal, a cook should be able to run a country- fuck that. I'll take bad capitalism over that nonsense any day.Demonstrably false. Prices will always go up regardless. Nobody should have to work for less than a liveable wage. If you disagree with me you are a piece of shit.
Uh, this is a total non-sequitur. It's like arguing that also getting shot will not affect the situation of someone who's been stabbed.
Just because prices are going up does not mean that something else can't also make them go up (more/faster), what a bizarre assertion.
Should people be forced to hire workers who cost more than they produce?
I don't see how both of these conditions can be met simultaneously, and unless they both are, there is still unresolved unfairness to contend with. What do you suggest?
You're not nearly as omniscient as you think you are, to make such an arrogant statement.
lol fuck off moron
Someone's mad that their idealism was confronted with inconvenient truths, lol.
I hope one day you'll mature enough not to react so childishly to being contradicted.
Of all the things you could've said you chose one of the dumbest.
If you work 40 hours a week you need to earn enough to live in the city where you do said work. Period.
Also, wages are only a small part of costs for pretty much everything. +10% wages does NOT mean +10% total costs for whatever that worker provides, and so does NOT mean +10% price, if the company is honest.
Now that my teens are working, I’m a bit uncomfortable with this. Does my teenager, whose living expenses are still fully paid by me, really need a living wage? We’re a $15 minimum wage so He’s excited about the money he’s making, but part of me feels like he’s taking some of that from someone who needs it
I guess it comes down to that it’s a job, that anyone can fill. Also that some teenagers may need a living wage
Thank god it's none of my employer's business what my living conditions are. If I can make do with a lot less because of personal circumstances then that's good for me, but that can't be the metric to measure other people against.
He's taking it from his employer who certainly doesn't "need it more", otherwise they wouldn't employ your son.
I don’t know whether to upvote you on the difficulty of defining a kids job or downvote on thinking there’s some sort of a lesson different than: he’s a kid with a temporary part time job, not an adult or independent.
Obviously I’m all for him earning more and wish him every success. However speaking from a much more general perspective: should there be any exceptions to livable wages annd is this one? Is there a reasonable way to even do that?
Think about the natural conclusion to the problem that you're trying to address. What if we pay teenagers who don't need the money less than everyone else. That would incentivize employers to ... check notes ... only hire teenagers who don't need the money. Everyone else, who actually does need the money, they would have trouble finding a job. Facepalm.
Also. Because your teenagers are getting lucky, in that they have a family that's paying all of their bills, you somehow wish that they weren't getting lucky, and that some rich person was getting richer? Do I understand that correctly?
Furthermore. There might be value to your teens in working less so that they can do other things when they're still teenagers. That might be something you would want to explore, since your family's finances are in a solid state.
And hey, if you think your teenager is being overpaid, why don't you encourage them to donate some of their money to charity?
In many other families, finances aren't so strong. Maybe the parents can pay the bills, but if the kids want to go to college, they'll have to take out student loans. Or they could start saving in high school, and use that money for college, or to get an apartment if they have to move out, or to buy a car, or whatever else they need after they graduate high school. All of a sudden the extra money sounds really important, doesn't it.
No, I’m saying that while I agree that essentially every job should have a livable wage, I can’t. Reconcile that with a teenager’s part time job while living at home.
I’d entertain the idea of an exception to livable wages, even if it hurts my family. However I don’t see a reasonable way to apply that without affecting everyone
It's certainly not my intent to judge you or make assumptions, but that seems like kind of a weird perspective, to believe your kid should make less than their peers for providing the same labor. There are plenty of households who humbly ask their working teens to contribute a portion to bills.
Nice strawman... You sure showed that completely made up political/economic philosophy who's boss!