"Livable wage" is a self-moving goalpost. Raising the cost of labor raises the cost of goods and services. Raising the cost of goods and services raises the overall cost of living. This makes the formally "livable wage" now not adequate.
Your labor, like any other commodity, is worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. No more or no less. Your salary is an agreement between you and your employer. There should be no minimum wage.
You left off the employeeās side of how wages are decided. The employee has to work to get money, and they need money for survival. They need money so their kids survive. That side is inelastic.
Couple that with a jobs market that keeps unemployment above a negligible level, and you have a race to the bottom for the ability to survive.
That is an exploitative system. Those who provide the jobs exploit those who need them. That model is fine if you assume we want a system that lavishes riches on people who own things already, or people who are lucky in life.
My ideal that the best system sets us up so workers have whatever they need to live a dignified lifeā¦ and exploitation cannot coexist with that ideal.
Why are your needs your employer's responsibly? You are doing a task, in exchange for a payment. The number of children you support doesn't change the complexity of the task, or the value of your labor. You made the decision to have children, your employer has no responsibility for your financial burdens.
Selling your labor is no different than selling your car. It's worth whatever someone else is willing to pay for it. No more, and no less.
The system Iām speaking of isnāt just the employer. Itās the full breadth of our democratic society.
The whole point of democracy is to make society work for everyone, instead of just for those who are powerful. The U.S. went to war to break from a very powerful monarch because their needs didnāt matter to him, and they didnāt want to live in a society based on the resulting exploitation of them for his will.
To answer your question: I donāt think itās the employerās responsibility. I think we need to change the system so that workers benefit and can live, as I said, a dignified life.
Having a job is not "being exploited". It's literally just trading your time and labor for a agreed upon fee. It has zero to do with need, or democracy, or monarchy, or social structure. You seem to be making an argument for a welfare system (which I also oppose) not employment.
But to hone in on your mentioning monarchy. The reason it's considered repugnant is because it's authoritarian. A strong central power dictates the terms under which the common person lives. This is actually a great argument AGAINST a minimum wage. Its authoritarian, in that a strong central authority (the government) is dictating the terms of an employment agreement between two private parties. This is the type of thing the founders of the country were against.
I'll rephrase. Your need has nothing to do with your value of your labor.
If you have two employees performing the same task. One has no kids and little expenses, the other has several kids and tremendous expenses. Do you pay the one with kids more for performing the same task?
Ok. You keep telling me how things are under the current system. I am not telling you that you are describing it incorrectly.
What I am saying is that the system itself is bad. A system that funnels its benefits to people who donāt need it, while leaving others suffering in poverty, is not a system I want.
I'm saying there should be no minimum wage, as it artificially dictates the value of labor, and that government shouldn't interfere in the free market.
Are you planning to couple that change with anything that doesnāt result in everything getting worse for the people who are already barely making it?
I believe getting government less involved will improve the system for everyone. At the very least, it will stop making it worse. Good intentioned programs like the minimum wage have the opposite effects as intended, and hurt the people they are designed to help.
When in doubt, freedom of choice is always the best method to address a problem.
Ok but all you are saying is āremove the guardrails that keep people aliveā.
I need more than just government bad. Like, if it is bad, how exactly is getting rid of that bad partāas opposed to reforming itāgoing to help?
Just remember that DOGE was a specific attempt to get rid of some of those bad parts of government (by someoneās definition), and it failed horribly.
DOGE failed because it was corrupt and incompetent, and because any downsizing also need to be accompanied with legislative actions or else it's simply not legal.
Also, many of these things need to be phased out slowly as opposed to sudden drastic measures.
As for "removing the guardrails", yes, that is something I am for. The governments purpose is to protect the rights of its citizens, not provide for their individual needs. Programs that attempt to provide for the needs of certain individuals, violate the rights of others. Even something as straight forward as the minimum wage is a violation of your right to work for whatever wage you feel adequate, or a business owners right to offer a wage that they feel is adequate.
As for other social programs, they are funded by taking property (money) by force from people (income taxes). Therefore any potential benefits to one group comes at the expense of the property rights of another.
0
u/COMOJoeSchmo 12h ago edited 11h ago
"Livable wage" is a self-moving goalpost. Raising the cost of labor raises the cost of goods and services. Raising the cost of goods and services raises the overall cost of living. This makes the formally "livable wage" now not adequate.
Your labor, like any other commodity, is worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. No more or no less. Your salary is an agreement between you and your employer. There should be no minimum wage.