1055
mic drop (lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Habahnow@sh.itjust.works 14 points 9 months ago

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@lemmy.dbzer0.com 29 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

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

[-] ApathyTree@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 9 months ago

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@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 months ago

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@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 9 months ago

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@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 9 months ago

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

[-] AgentGrimstone@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

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

[-] Habahnow@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago

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.

[-] GingeyBook@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

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@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 9 months ago

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

this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
1055 points (95.4% liked)

Work Reform

9856 readers
244 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS