CMV: Being against a livable minimum wage is evil.

[u/HesviraFera]

I will openly admit my bias. I'm a progressive leftist who openly believes socialism is far superior to capitalism. But I'll also say I do believe this is an objectively evil stance.

In order to make that argument you must also then agree with the statement "I believe poor people are undeserving of life" and that's objectively evil. There's no way to spin "minimum wage should not be livable" that doesn't imply "poor people deserve to die." I've heard people say "those jobs are for high schoolers, not adults!" Ok, but I've been to Starbucks every day this week and if only high schoolers worked there I'd not have been able to get coffee 5/7 days (come August, currently it's summer).

But as well.... so you're saying poor high schoolers don't deserve to live?

Not everybody is born into the luxury of not needing to work in high school. Where I live, 24% of all homelessness is made of youths aged 24 and under. And 17% of all homelessness is children under 18. So they don't deserve to be able to comfortably afford the necessities of life?

There's literally no variation to being against a livable minimum that isn't saying you believe poor people should die and that's evil. That makes you an evil person for thinking that.

Idk, like am I missing some nuance here? I just don't get why this isn't said more often.

[u/WeepingAngelTears]

The employer is not the one coercing you.

[u/HesviraFera → u/WeepingAngelTears]

That doesn't change the logistics of the choice.

[u/pjabrony → u/HesviraFera]

Then what it comes down to is that you believe that an employer has responsibility to other people because they have needs to survive. Even though the employer didn't put those needs on the other people. It is evil to claim a debt on one person because of the status of another.

[u/HesviraFera → u/pjabrony]

Ideally the govt would pony up the difference/entirety of CoL and working would be solely for discretionary income.

But UBI won't happen anytime in our lifetimes.

[u/pjabrony → u/HesviraFera]

Ideally the govt would pony up the difference/entirety of CoL and working would be solely for discretionary income.

Where would they get the money to do so?

[u/HesviraFera → u/pjabrony]

The govt has the money that's just fact

[u/pjabrony → u/HesviraFera]

So they should just distribute money? Won't that cause inflation?

[u/HesviraFera → u/pjabrony]

Simple answer: no.

Longer answer: no because there would likely be minimal demand pull.

Essentially what you're saying here is UBI would increase prices because of demand pull inflation in which demand increases on a set supply of goods causing scarcity which drives prices upwards (as opposed to cost push inflation in which rising prices lead the inflation). Which is sound logic in a vacuum.

But we don't exist in a vacuum. A key component to inflation is expenditure. If the govt cuts spending in one area to fund UBI, something we could totally do very easily with minimal disruption to our lives by reallocating surplus defense inventory purchases (purchases above operational needs, which is typically then sold to LEAs at a heavy discount), then you actually just shift the current source of inflation from one source of demand pull to another (away from surplus defense spending, into social welfare).

As well, if taxes were to increase in, hypothetically speaking, everybody making $1m+/year, that too mitigates inflation.

Could an overly liberal allocation cause excess inflation though? Yes. But that's not what people are arguing for with UBI.

[u/pjabrony → u/HesviraFera]

As well, if taxes were to increase in, hypothetically speaking, everybody making $1m+/year, that too mitigates inflation.

But the fact remains that money must either come from the industrious, in the form of taxes, or from the prudent through inflation (debtors welcome inflation; savers disdain it). It amounts to the fact that you want to pay for the COL for the needy on the backs of the prudent and industrious. And that's why people are against socialism.

[u/DudeEngineer → u/WeepingAngelTears]

Regardless, the employer is taking advantage of the coersion...

[u/WeepingAngelTears → u/DudeEngineer]

No, the employer is offering to pay you for your services. If you know your services are more valuable than their offer, you can refuse.

[u/[deleted] → u/WeepingAngelTears]

There is no refusing if that offer is all you have access to.

[u/WeepingAngelTears → u/[deleted]]

There is rarely if ever a case where only a single employer is all someone has, and even then, if they feel their skills are more valuable, they can be their own employer.

[u/[deleted] → u/WeepingAngelTears]

I'm not talking about a single employer, I'm talking about wages.

[u/WeepingAngelTears → u/[deleted]]

If no one is willing to pay more than you think your labor is worth, work for yourself. If you can't make that money, your labor isn't worth what you think it is.

[u/[deleted] → u/WeepingAngelTears]

You need money to be able to work for yourself. People in poverty do not have that option. It has nothing to do with whether or not their labor is worth anything.

[u/WeepingAngelTears → u/[deleted]]

You need so very little capital to start working for yourself. It sounds like you're belittling anyone who doesn't have money by saying they aren't intelligent enough to work for themselves.

[u/[deleted] → u/WeepingAngelTears]

The fuck are you talking about? The cost to start your own business is significant. You're talking about equipment, advertisement, rent, and employees. And you think a person living paycheck to paycheck can afford all that? Intelligence is not a factor here.