Politics & Philosophy by Dr. Martin D. Hash, Esq.
The argument for both a Minimum wage and a Living wage make an employer responsible for the choices and circumstances of their employees. In a Free Market, employers pay what a job is worth to them, not what the employee wants. If picking up trash, washing dishes, babysitting, etc. cost too much, they won't get done, but these jobs teach Work Ethic, especially to those who need it, which is extremely valuable to society. Most employers would go ahead and hire someone who's untrained or unproductive, and oversee them, just to help out, but if they had to pay more, forget it; let somebody else carry the burden. The often-heard example that Walmart employees can't afford healthcare is a condemnation of the high cost of healthcare in America, not Walmart, who's just looking for a part-time stockboy. If a society wants higher wages then society should pay for them: let Markets figure out what a job is worth, then government can subsidize them through Welfare.
A lot of people are simply incompetent in life for one reason or another; they consume more than they can produce, and need government assistance; that’s what Welfare’s for. However, it’s a sliding scale, some need lower levels of assistance; those ones can work performing low-wage jobs with Welfare filling the gap. Potential low wage workers sitting at home getting government money doing nothing because there's nothing they can do worth paying a living wage for, is a bad idea, and generates a lot of resentment & animosity from working people. Arguments against subsidizing marginal employees are either sanctimonious, egalitarian, or people who claim it will cause higher taxes; and none factor in the value to society of teaching people how to work.
Categories | PRay TeLL, Dr. Hash
Filetype: MP3 - Size: 2.17MB - Duration: 2:56 m (103 kbps 44100 Hz)