Full-time jobs that don’t pay a living wage should be illegal. No matter how “beneath” you the job feels, if we need someone to do it “full-time” then anything less than a full living is a rip off, and you have to either advocate for taxpayers to subsidize the employer’s greed or that they overwork to make a living.
In my country buildings and flats appreciate at a rate of 6% year-on-year on average. Rent is only 3% of the value of that property per year, on average. So a landlord can take 9% and have to deal with renters, their demands and the risk of them breaking things, or take 6% and do nothing at all. Keeping properties empty and off the market is enriching themselves on the suffering of people who now don’t have a place to live.
So in my opinion there should be a vacancy tax that exactly matches the value appreciation rate of the property. Then landlords have the choice between 0% (=loss of money due to inflation) or 9%. And if they still don’t want to rent the place out, they can still sell it to someone who wants to live there.
That proposal would still keep renting out property as a profitable way to go, while also helping people who want to buy property to live there, and the only people who would get harmed by this are people who purposely take property off the market to create scarcity to enrich themselves.
Assuming 25/hr minimum living wage: There are optional positions within businesses that are nice to have, but very simple, but can be opted to be done for any number of hours a day up to full time, and cannot be justified to carry 25/hr…
You could have a company offering menial work on razor thin margins, but some people like working there, like scooping ice cream, which could not otherwise exist at 25/hr.
There are small businesses that people want to work with that don’t make enough to pay everyone 25/hr (ex. some small gyms).
There are cases where low revenue businesses could pay with future equity, but cannot afford 25/hr now.
You have to account for these cases in your rules.
Then do universal basic income. Now people are free to spend a couple hours scooping ice cream without risking their safety. Assuming your basic income is enough to cover a dignified life
Already explained why… Lots of positions are just nice to have, but are subsidized already, entirely, by other positions that generate all revenue. In many cases you don’t want the business to go away entirely, and in many cases the business wouldn’t even fail, you’d just end up with the optional positions terminated, so those employees make 0/hr instead.
Another poster already contributed a valid solution of UBI.
No you didn’t. You only said that a company that can’t afford “25/hr” would be unable to hire people at that rate. Plus an offhand comment about how some people working full time “cannot be justified” earning a living wage, that’s the point you seemingly want to make but just stating something isn’t an explanation.
I’m pretty sure its in Walmart’s on-boarding process to instruct new employees to apply to welfare programs. If your multibillion dollar corporation is pushing their employees onto government assistance than what the fuck is the point of working. You know that nothing you do will get you a better salary because they aren’t just doing this to you but thousands, maybe millions, across the US and globally. And the c-suite is raking in billions in profit that they squeeze from their employees. But don’t worry Walmart had a college repayment program so they are giving back /s
Their on boarding process 10 years ago also implicitly told you that they would fire you if you attempted to unionize, and even explicitly told you to report your coworkers to management if they talked about a union.
It’s extremely illegal, but I’ve never heard of them getting in trouble for it.
That’s because we gained workers rights by force and ever since: the elite have been driving us (the working class) apart from each other to make us isolated and powerless.
Full-time jobs that don’t pay a living wage should be illegal. No matter how “beneath” you the job feels, if we need someone to do it “full-time” then anything less than a full living is a rip off, and you have to either advocate for taxpayers to subsidize the employer’s greed or that they overwork to make a living.
Not only that, the other side is also that owning buildings as investments should also be illegal.
In my country buildings and flats appreciate at a rate of 6% year-on-year on average. Rent is only 3% of the value of that property per year, on average. So a landlord can take 9% and have to deal with renters, their demands and the risk of them breaking things, or take 6% and do nothing at all. Keeping properties empty and off the market is enriching themselves on the suffering of people who now don’t have a place to live.
So in my opinion there should be a vacancy tax that exactly matches the value appreciation rate of the property. Then landlords have the choice between 0% (=loss of money due to inflation) or 9%. And if they still don’t want to rent the place out, they can still sell it to someone who wants to live there.
That proposal would still keep renting out property as a profitable way to go, while also helping people who want to buy property to live there, and the only people who would get harmed by this are people who purposely take property off the market to create scarcity to enrich themselves.
I would add strict rend regulations. A one bedroom apartment should not be rented for more than 1/4 of minimum wage…
Assuming 25/hr minimum living wage: There are optional positions within businesses that are nice to have, but very simple, but can be opted to be done for any number of hours a day up to full time, and cannot be justified to carry 25/hr… You could have a company offering menial work on razor thin margins, but some people like working there, like scooping ice cream, which could not otherwise exist at 25/hr. There are small businesses that people want to work with that don’t make enough to pay everyone 25/hr (ex. some small gyms). There are cases where low revenue businesses could pay with future equity, but cannot afford 25/hr now. You have to account for these cases in your rules.
Then do universal basic income. Now people are free to spend a couple hours scooping ice cream without risking their safety. Assuming your basic income is enough to cover a dignified life
This is likely a reasonable solution.
You are both extremely bad at logic and math.
Why? They can’t afford an employee. They shouldn’t hire one.
I think your hat smells really good…
Already explained why… Lots of positions are just nice to have, but are subsidized already, entirely, by other positions that generate all revenue. In many cases you don’t want the business to go away entirely, and in many cases the business wouldn’t even fail, you’d just end up with the optional positions terminated, so those employees make 0/hr instead.
Another poster already contributed a valid solution of UBI.
No you didn’t. You only said that a company that can’t afford “25/hr” would be unable to hire people at that rate. Plus an offhand comment about how some people working full time “cannot be justified” earning a living wage, that’s the point you seemingly want to make but just stating something isn’t an explanation.
It blew mi mind today when i read that people work at Walmart AND collect food stamp. What is even the point of working if you can’t afford to live?
That’s been known and publicly stated for what feels like a decade or more. Good to know NOTHING has been done about it.
I’m pretty sure its in Walmart’s on-boarding process to instruct new employees to apply to welfare programs. If your multibillion dollar corporation is pushing their employees onto government assistance than what the fuck is the point of working. You know that nothing you do will get you a better salary because they aren’t just doing this to you but thousands, maybe millions, across the US and globally. And the c-suite is raking in billions in profit that they squeeze from their employees. But don’t worry Walmart had a college repayment program so they are giving back /s
Their on boarding process 10 years ago also implicitly told you that they would fire you if you attempted to unionize, and even explicitly told you to report your coworkers to management if they talked about a union.
It’s extremely illegal, but I’ve never heard of them getting in trouble for it.
That’s because we gained workers rights by force and ever since: the elite have been driving us (the working class) apart from each other to make us isolated and powerless.
They have shut down entire stores that were trying to unionize.
Like Starbux, in its hometown.
Wait till you learn about how black people have been treated by the police and government officials it’s cold as ice. USA USA!
Low wages and poor labour laws actually make it so big corporations can indirectly profit off social programs:
https://www.motherjones.com/food/2020/11/which-companies-have-the-highest-number-of-workers-on-medicaid-and-food-stamps/
This has been happening for like 30 years now, you just read about tris today?
https://xkcd.com/1053/
One of the most utilitarian xkcds i know of. 10/10
If you are not paying living wages for a full-time job, that means you are getting subsidized employees from the government.
part of walmarts onboarding process is how to apply for government assistance like snap