Hacker News Reader

Comment by astr0n0m3r | Hacker News Reader

Actually, there are perfectly good reasons the minimum wage should be below a "living wage".

Would you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and ideological flamebait to HN? When I look at your comment history I see several of those, and also several substantive comments, though those are from years ago. If you'd like to keep commenting here, please drop your recent habit and go back to that earlier one.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I think you are mistaken. If I see a comment that is objectively false, then it ought to be pointed out as such. Not doing so would make Hacker News irrelevant. How am I to object to a false statement without getting flagged? Wouldn't the comment to which I'm replying also need to be flagged, since it states an ideologically driven false statement?

Please tell me what recent comments are flamebait because I've looked at my comment history. In context, I've always been civil.

No, there are literally no good reasons for that.

If you work a full-time job, and I don't care what that job is, your employer absolutely should adequately compensate you, for the amount of time spent on your job.

Your employer is buying your time, the most precious and absolutely non-renewable resource you have. Don't sell it too cheaply.

So teenagers working part-time need to earn a living wage? Having a one-size-fits-all number is damaging. The problem is workers who don't hone a useful skill and create a record of reliability. Anyone that does that won't be making the minimum wage after a little while, at least in the current economy.

I specifically said a full-time job. A full-time job needs a proper full-time wage.

The same applies to a married couple where one makes $20/hr and the other $5/hr.

It is still exploitation.

No person in their right mind would work a $5/hr full-time job in the western world, unless they were indoctrinated into a sick "trust us, trickle-down works!" society.

Let's flip it around: Why do you think it's reasonable in any way, that an employer wants to hire a full-time worker at way below a living wage?

Full-time job must pay full-time wage. Can't afford to run your business then? Too bad, find somewhere cheaper to run it. The city/countryside balance will adjust.

Minimum wage is less for teenagers. When I was 15 the minimum wage was $5.15 and I was paid $4.85 because that was the minimum wage for a 15 year old. And it wasn't because I received tips, where the minimum wage was even lower ($2.80 or so I think?)

Where and when was this? That's certainly not true in California in 2018.

Especially if your full-time job contract specifically prohibits you from getting a second job or doing side jobs.

If the company is buying all of your working time then they had damn well better be paying you at least a living wage.

Entry level worker who is not valued the fluctuating livable wage level; where they do not have basic work skills. In San Fransciso, a livable wage might be around $50,000 ($12k for housing, 20k for all taxes, $8k for food and other housing necessities, and 10k for savings, clothes, or insurance); this basically means an hourly wage of $25/hr. As an entry level job this is not a good option for employers and thus why they turn to automation, they know the robots skill and value, but estimating if an entry person can meet these skills is nigh impossible.

The other end is that someone is able to underbid you for your time. Which means you can believe you are worth $25/hr, but get no jobs because Jim Burnett will do it for $24 or someone in a lower livable wage area will do it for $5. In this case, you will have no work based on your theory.

Automation is inevitable. It is absolutely not a valid argument for a race to the bottom.

Is being paid a non-living wage better than being paid nothing at all?

Say I am a one man shop. I would like an assistant, but I don't actually make enough to pay the assistant a "living wage". My options are to hire an assistant at non-living wages, or not hire an assistant at all. Which is preferable?

You can afford to hire a part-time assistant. You shouldn't be able to hire someone to work full-time for you for $20 a week. I hope that's obvious.

If I wanted to learn from this person their craft and wanted to make a desirable investment in being in their presence and knowledge, you would prevent me from accepting this opportunity?

Don't conflate apprenticeships with taking advantage of poor people. Are you pretending there is no difference between these two scenarios?

A) Someone is a gifted tattoo artist and you want to learn the craft from them, so you pay them to teach you. You're responsible for your living expenses and you get by with odd jobs or what-have-you.

B) Someone pays you $5/day to do office work for them.

What about:

C) Someone is a gifted tattoo artist and you want to learn the craft from them, but you don't have any money to pay them. So the tattoo artist takes you on as a full-time paid intern, making a non-living wage

would like an assistant, but I don't actually make enough to pay the assistant a "living wage"

Have your assistant come in only 2-3 days a week or or only 3-4 hours in the morning.

Since you literally can't think of a single reason, I thought it would be fun if I tried to think of a reason that I had never heard before (or at least I don't remember hearing). So here it is:

Suppose that someone makes $20/hr but only works 20 hours per week. A second (unskilled) job that only pays $5/hr for 20 hours per week would be a significant increase in their income. In fact, where I live that would put them over what is considered a "living wage".

But that's a supplemental part-time job, not a full-time job.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com