You are only browsing one thread in the discussion! All comments are available on the post page.

Return

Habahnow ,

No certain I agree 2 bedroom for minimum, but definitely getting a single bedroom or studio near where they work makes a whole lot of sense.

ApathyTree , (edited )
@ApathyTree@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

That sounds ok until you realize how many people have kids at least half time, but no adult partner. And a lot of those people don’t make much above min wage.

Even if they make slightly more than minimum now, a rising tide lifts all ships.

Plus minimum wage was intended to be the lowest single wage a family could be supported on. Just requiring it cover a 2br apartment is a far cry from the original intent

Habahnow ,

Good point. I’d kinda expect the government to help in that situation more.

ApathyTree ,
@ApathyTree@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

Why should the government support bad businesses? Serious question, because we socialize losses (tax-paid anssistance) and privatize profits (they keep it, regardless how many employees are on assistance).

We do that already with welfare for people working a surprising number of places (Walmart and McDonald’s are prime examples, where they have published budgets assuming you will get government assistance)

Why is that ok, but requiring living wages isn’t?

Habahnow ,

I was imagining that in terms of tax breaks. The reason being you’re pay is not tied to the number of your children. If we say minimum wage is enough to cover 2 children, then people have a financial incentive and advantage if they don’t have children. Compare that to minimum wage addresses Mainly your own costs with tax breaks and credits helping to cover child costs.

ApathyTree ,
@ApathyTree@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

So? Who cares if people have a financial incentive to not have kids. That have that advantage now, too.

Why is it a bad thing to pay people enough for two kids even if they choose not to have them? And why should taxes be paying for this shit when companies make plenty of money to cover the lot of it? That’s just silly.

dangblingus ,

Why don’t you agree with the 2 bedroom? Why can’t the working class have some leg room?

GingeyBook ,

Then we’d have to call it “some leg room wage”

It’s the minimum wage, it’s supposed to be the minimum you need to survive. Conversely, you don’t need two bedrooms to survive

gamermanh ,
@gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

No, we call it the “minimum wage” because it’s the minimum to be legally paid

It’s meant to be a living wage, and in case that’s not clear enough for you

and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.

quoted from FDR, the guy who got the initial minimum wage laws passed in the US

Habahnow ,

What gingeybook said, with the addendum, if there was an option to bring up minimum wage to allow that wage to rent a 2 bedroom i would totally vote for it over voting against it, because itd better than nothing for sure.

AgentGrimstone ,

Fuck it. Let’s make it 3 and build a gym for the whole complex while you’re at it.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • [email protected]
  • All magazines
    •