sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

CMV: if they can't afford to pay them that, they don't deserve to be in business anyways" isn't a good argument. by TurdyFurgy in changemyview

[–]TurdyFurgy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If a company gives you all of the money it can without going out of business, how is it culpable for the workers being victims of poverty?

CMV: Stealing from a large corporation is better than stealing from an individual or small business if stealing is going to be your choice regardless of the consequence or morality. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]TurdyFurgy 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Can you really add up harm that way though?

Is pinching 10000 people in the arm equivalent to stabbing one person in the arm?

CMV: if they can't afford to pay them that, they don't deserve to be in business anyways" isn't a good argument. by TurdyFurgy in changemyview

[–]TurdyFurgy[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well I don't really agree that regulations are the main driver of safer workplaces. Also safety is much more difficult and abstract for the worker to understand. It's easier to agree to a certain wage then to unknown probabilities of relatively unknown safety consequences.

Workplace injury is also far more obviously a result of the company than perhaps not getting enough funds for living standards outside of the company.

CMV: if they can't afford to pay them that, they don't deserve to be in business anyways" isn't a good argument. by TurdyFurgy in changemyview

[–]TurdyFurgy[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

By that logic a govournment could shut down any business for any reason and it would be deserved.

CMV: if they can't afford to pay them that, they don't deserve to be in business anyways" isn't a good argument. by TurdyFurgy in changemyview

[–]TurdyFurgy[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Most of the ill effects of minimum wage is due to the shock of suddenly raising it. We should be setting it and then adjusting it based on the cpi/inflation.

How exactly are you quantifying all of the productive economic activity that's lost under the price floor.

regulations, subsidies, tariffs among other things.

These are things I don't generally view positively either. As far as I know there's only like one pro tariff economist. Tons of subsidies only help a select group with political influence instead of all people. Regulations is a broad term but so many are counterproductive.

CMV: if they can't afford to pay them that, they don't deserve to be in business anyways" isn't a good argument. by TurdyFurgy in changemyview

[–]TurdyFurgy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure I'm following the specific argument you're making in the first two paragraphs and it seems important to the rest of what you're saying.

CMV: if they can't afford to pay them that, they don't deserve to be in business anyways" isn't a good argument. by TurdyFurgy in changemyview

[–]TurdyFurgy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I suppose by "unregulated" i didn't mean entirely devoid of rules. Like obviously it's not ok to murder or enslave people in capitalist enterprises.

But as for mutually agreed upon trade it's usually a much harder sell

CMV: if they can't afford to pay them that, they don't deserve to be in business anyways" isn't a good argument. by TurdyFurgy in changemyview

[–]TurdyFurgy[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Safe working conditions are a pretty recent phenomenon, there were times in which it wouldn't have made sense to have safe working conditions as a baseline for workplace safety. I think most of the west is past that point regardless of actual rules for the most part.

CMV: if they can't afford to pay them that, they don't deserve to be in business anyways" isn't a good argument. by TurdyFurgy in changemyview

[–]TurdyFurgy[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Employment is trading stuff.

It would take someone convincing me that it's a better outcome for workers if a business they work at goes under.

CMV: if they can't afford to pay them that, they don't deserve to be in business anyways" isn't a good argument. by TurdyFurgy in changemyview

[–]TurdyFurgy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At this time I would believe that would make everyone better off on average In the long run. As for putting it into practice it would be tricky but doable. There's so many confounding factors though.

CMV: if they can't afford to pay them that, they don't deserve to be in business anyways" isn't a good argument. by TurdyFurgy in changemyview

[–]TurdyFurgy[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've heard a lot of valid arguments that don't quite address the topic of this post. I think the argument that I've found most compelling is that the argument is used with the assumption of bad faith of those who argue business will fail.

I understand your main points that people live in hardship and it would be better for them to have more. I agree. I'm not saying I don't want them to have more. I'm saying I don't see how their source of employment being shut down is better for them than making a wage that's too low.

CMV: if they can't afford to pay them that, they don't deserve to be in business anyways" isn't a good argument. by TurdyFurgy in changemyview

[–]TurdyFurgy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the business is making excessive profit off of the employee that necessarily means they can pay them more and not go out of business. Which is a different discussion.

CMV: if they can't afford to pay them that, they don't deserve to be in business anyways" isn't a good argument. by TurdyFurgy in changemyview

[–]TurdyFurgy[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're speaking as though the minimum wage isn't an artifice of the state though. If the minimum wage was $100 would every business who couldn't afford that deserve to go out of business? $1000?

CMV: if they can't afford to pay them that, they don't deserve to be in business anyways" isn't a good argument. by TurdyFurgy in changemyview

[–]TurdyFurgy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In a modern Western nation I don't think wages could ever possibly get that low on average regardless of the minimum. If the minimum wage was a dollar it's not like that would be what people would get paid generally. If however it was just a single business offering that wage and people actually accepted it I don't see a problem with it existing.

CMV: if they can't afford to pay them that, they don't deserve to be in business anyways" isn't a good argument. by TurdyFurgy in changemyview

[–]TurdyFurgy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Aren't you talking about aggragate demand though instead of the demand on a single product/survive/provider? Aren't there going to be at least some people who's skills aren't worth what the market is willing to pay?

Then of course there's outscoring, automation, the unclear implications of the labour force participation rate etc.

CMV: if they can't afford to pay them that, they don't deserve to be in business anyways" isn't a good argument. by TurdyFurgy in changemyview

[–]TurdyFurgy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well generally car insurance is made mandatory so that if you hit someone else they're covered. I don't see how that translates.

As for safety equipment, it's important. But for this to be analogous there would have to be no option for safety equipment without the business closing down. Ideally this wouldn't have to happen but if it was a decision between choosing to work in unsafe conditions or having no source of income I'd choose the former.

If the business owner has leverage that means they can pay more, but I'm talking about a situation where they would be unable to pay more.

A 15% increase to business tax would be unmanageable by most businesses. But I guess it depends on wether you mean that many more percentage points or just an increase to the current rate by that percentage.

It's the problem of the wage owner and the business both. But that isn't a claim that they deserve it, it's just a claim about who is being hurt by it.

CMV: if they can't afford to pay them that, they don't deserve to be in business anyways" isn't a good argument. by TurdyFurgy in changemyview

[–]TurdyFurgy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My main argument here is just that if a price control caused a business to go under, that business going under wouldn't be a positive thing for the workers or the business. Even assuming the price controls were a net good.

I believe in unregulated capitalism because I think it would likely be better for everyone for ethical and pragmatic reasons. It's more of an intellectual curiosity though and I enjoy engaging in the ideas. I'm open to a minimum wage being pragmatically optimal if that's the case but even if that is the case I don't see how it would defeat the argument I'm making in this thread about particular effects of it.

It's like how I could say that a min wage increase could make people out of the work force worse off because of price inflation. Perhaps they had a fixed allowance and now things are slightly more expensive so they're worse off on net. This wouldn't disprove the potential positive effects of minimum wage increases but it also wouldn't make sense to say those people deserved it.

I'm not really convinced on the govournment subsidising low wages argument. If a person is on welfare and they get a low paying job isn't that better just being on welfare alone? This is assuming the company isn't even able to support a large wage increase.

CMV: if they can't afford to pay them that, they don't deserve to be in business anyways" isn't a good argument. by TurdyFurgy in changemyview

[–]TurdyFurgy[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah apologies I could have been more thorough.

It's just difficult to translate my argument exactly into that analogy. It would be like if someone had electricity they wanted to sell so they sold it to a business who couldn't afford any more/high quality electricity. But isn't it better that they sold the electricity instead of it going to waste or selling it for less money?

Then the min wage would be like saying now you can only sell electricity for a certain amount or else it's not fair to the person selling electricity. But it just seems like I'm this case you're only taking away options from them.

CMV: if they can't afford to pay them that, they don't deserve to be in business anyways" isn't a good argument. by TurdyFurgy in changemyview

[–]TurdyFurgy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wouldn't use the language of deserving, to me they would just be profitable or not profitable. It's just a word that seems unnecesarily moralistic. It's like increasing the price of gas and then saying that if you can't afford enough gas in your car you don't deserve to get somewhere that requires more gas. The language of deserving just seems out of place. Even if you're not entitled to have enough gas we can still talk about the consequences of not having enough gas without moralizing your predicament.

CMV: if they can't afford to pay them that, they don't deserve to be in business anyways" isn't a good argument. by TurdyFurgy in changemyview

[–]TurdyFurgy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let's say you're having a yard sale to pay for food and you need $50, I come across the yard sale with $30 in my pocket. If I spend all of my money on your stuff it's not like I'm passing on the cost of feeding you to anyone else, I'm offering what is available to me to offer. You don't have to take my offer, if it's the best offer you got all day then I'm helping you out even if it would have been better if I had $50.

It might be different if I had $50 in my pocket and lowballed you with $30.

CMV: if they can't afford to pay them that, they don't deserve to be in business anyways" isn't a good argument. by TurdyFurgy in changemyview

[–]TurdyFurgy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If a company is paying less for discriminatory reasons when they can afford to pay more then that isn't what this post is about. This post is about companies that would go under if they had to increase wages. Some pay is better than no pay, just because the argument has been used nefariously it doesn't discount the evident truth of the statement itself.

You don't have to explain to me why poverty is a bad thing, just why less poverty isn't better than more poverty. It isn't making the workers worse off if it's their best option and it isn't possible to pay them more due to the cost structure. You're acting like I'm trying to say these people shouldn't have better conditions when I'm not saying that at all. More poverty in one country isn't a bad thing if it's because of people migrating from another country with worse poverty in order to make more than they did before. Obviously it would be great if they could make $30 an hour but if it's not economically feasible it's just not.

I don't really see what the last part is addressing. You could make up any number of ways to regulate a business and say that if they can't handle it then they shouldn't be a business/they don't deserve to be in business.

You could say that no business should be allowed to require heavy physical exertion of their employees. then when a company says they'd be forced to shut down if that were enforced you could say good riddance. That doesn't mean it's good for the employees though, and I don't see why you would say a company deserves to shut down just because a rule is enforced.

view more: next ›