Hacker News Reader

Comment by scarface74 | Hacker News Reader

So should we force companies to pay a “livable income” for the teenager staying at home? The couple with two small kids and the mom staying at home to raise them? The single mom who has to raise three or four kids on her own? The single person in the story who needs expensive medical care to stay alive?

View on HN

Yes. Because people who need jobs to live shouldn’t have to suffer for those people you mentioned. All those people you mentioned it’s a fucking optional thing - don’t optimize for the optional.

So it’s “optional” for the single mom who was married and whose husband left/died? Is it “optional” in any circumstance for the kids?

She should get a living wage. The kids should take less hours so they have more time to do things other than being a wage slave. Everyone who works should get a living wage.

If everyone has a living wage, the businesses will do better because people will have more money to spend. That’s the point of investment. Our economy is built off of the consumer, who has been stagnating for decades. We could be doing far better with a stronger middle class.

So since the living wage is different for a single mom with two kids than a single person living alone, should the minimum wage be different for one than the other?

No, she should get different assistance for her situation, or if not, then yes.

Sure, why not? There’s a ridiculous amount of money out there, but people are squabbling over pennies.

So now when you apply for a job they should base your pay on your household situation? If one person is single and the other is a single mom with three kids, the company should pay more?

Should they also get paid more if one has a medical condition and the other doesn’t?

Again, why not?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com