Recently heard someone argue "If you can't afford to pay livable wages, then you can't afford to be in business". Have to say I agree with that. It's hard for me to feel sorry for businesses who rely on importing cheap labor to survive.
edit: hn thread from the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11138086
Sure, they have a "choice," they don't have to drive 250 miles and stay at their jobs for a week for low pay. But sleeping in your car to be able to work is, as the say, "not normal." The only reason Uber is able to get away with this is because their drivers' choices are limited. Just like the Jamaicans and similar that come to America to pick and serve strawberries. They're exploited because it's possible.
It's a dilemna, I realize. I rarely go stay at a B&B, for example, and if the B&B paid "American, livable" wages, they'd be too expensive for me to ever go. So maybe a business that provides "services" for things like a place to sleep (and someone to clean up after you) and something to eat (and someone to cook and clean up after you) is simply not sustainable (even though those exploited people would probably rather have the job than not).
Maybe there shouldn't be lots of hotels, restaurants and car services, except for the niche that serve people willing and able to pay enough for those services to in turn pay equitable wages.
Pretty tough to figure out, for me.
(It's because capitalists have stolen all the property and are renting it back to you.)
What I don't understand is why non-CEOs believe it so dogmatically.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/dining/restaurants-no-tip...
Doesn't sound all that terrible.
[1] https://www.dn.no/nyheter/2017/06/02/0942/Handel/nordea-sjef... (Norwegian, statement by head of the Nordea bank)
I may choose not to buy it, but that doesn't mean I am unhappy. It may mean I can't afford it.
If a product costs $0.25 to produce plus a few finger off little children working in the factory, but we don't pay for fingers... then the product doesn't really cost $0.25 to produce. So I can pay $0.25 plus higher taxes to pay for dismemberment medical, or higher taxes to pay for police to arrest dismembered people from stealing for a living, or higher costs from being mugged every so often by fingerless bandits.
Not paying a living wage has costs to the consumer and everyone else in society.
This is why I am opposed to minimum wage: My child does not need to make a living wage bagging groceries. I want them to have a job for the life experience, but they don't pay rent or utilities or a car payment or a grocery bill. If they have skills to land a $30/hr job, great! But they don't have those skills. They have no skills and no credentials. I want them to get a summer job so they can start building. The wage doesn't matter.
Here's another reason: I have a great job with great benefits. I also have spare time. I don't mind doing side jobs for peanuts if I find value in the work. For instance, I might teach a class at the local community college. I don't do this for the money, but for other reasons. Is this fair to other teachers whom I displace? Well... I think so. If they want job security they should get skilled at something with more security. Imagine if the cost of medical school got cut in half because so many successful doctors spent some of their free time working part-time at medical schools for $5/hr.
Is a minimum wage preventing doctors from working part-time at medical schools? Of course not. But there are many circumstances where a minimum wage and other well-meaning labor laws are having a detrimental effect.
I know that if we dropped all protections for workers, many workers would allow employers to take advantage of them. So I don't know the right balance. But I would err on letting the worker make the call.
One more thought, though, is that we have reached a point where we can produce far more than we consume. There is just less need for labor. So we are seeing growing pains as we continue the everlasting wrestle over who controls and benefits from the means of production. In a world where we only need 40% of the population to be able to produce enough for everybody, how do you decide who does how much work and who benefits how much from their work?
The historical answer is, pay people to play games while other people watch. That way, we can employ people to produce nothing. So you end up with one person who works 80 hours a week to barely support their family while another person refuses to play another game unless they get paid $100K to play it. That is because YOU are willing to pay $100 to go to see people play a game, but balk at paying $1/pound for onions.