Hacker News Reader

Comment by raw_anon_1111 | Hacker News Reader

Why is it the responsibility of private industry to support a “living wage?” Should we index on a single person living alone? A teenager living with their parents? A single mom of three kids? A single mom with a single disabled kid?

Private industry should concentrate on paying people their market wages. Government should tax industries and individuals and provide a safety net.

Let me tell you from first hand experience what happens when unions get involved with manufacturing industries where they can pick up and go elsewhere - they do. Growing up, the city I lived in had 5 factories - all but one left because of fights with unions.

Where I use to live in the burbs of Atlanta, according to the website, the living wage is $45 an hour. Should we have a minimum wage there of $45 an hour?

View on HN

>Why is it the responsibility of private industry to support a “living wage?”

Because if they don't, they are externalising the true costs of labour to the government, or the community.

Which is fine, by the way, but they cannot then turn around and oppose the cost of taxation needed for gov programs which support people who aren't receiving that living wage. Nor, and worse still, oppose a living wage and then force work people to work such long hours that they cannot sustain a community that can provide the extra support needed to maintain a decent life.

So in Forsyth County GA where I use to live you think the minimum wage should be $30/hour? That’s what they said the livable wage is for a single person. If I have a child and I’m single should I automatically get a raise if $45 an hour?

> Because if they don't, they are externalising the true costs of labour to the government, or the community.

Does this mean anything or is it a circular definition?

If we decide we'd like people to have at least the standard of living of a single person earning $40/hour, does that make $40/hour the "true cost of labor"? Could we just as easily raise our standards and say $50/hour is the true cost?

The living wage is higher than what you would often have with no government intervention or safety net, so it's not a natural cost of labor in that sense.

No. Prices are not arbitrary; they're determined by market forces. I don't really agree with the idea that the minimum wage should be intended to support an adult (I think our welfare systems should be reformed to eliminate cliffs), but if you set it to the average price of a bunch of stuff in a region it's gonna be an actual number.

You can change the set of stuff, but it's much harder to cheat if you actually have to say what a living wage should be spent on.

I'm not doubting that we can choose a rate for the living wage.

I'm asking about the sentence I quoted. What makes the living wage the "true cost" of labor? Why consider it to be a cost that private industry should rightfully pay, and if they don't, they're "externalising" it to the government?

By the same logic, isn't nearly all government spending just externalized costs? When the government pays for roads or police, are these also externalized costs that private industry should pay for?

It sounds like a minarchist viewpoint, where government spending is kept to a minimum and services are privatized.

The "true cost of labor" is set by the market. The cost to society of a person who can't find work because viable work opportunities have been destroyed by overregulation is unambiguously higher than that of the same person being gainfully employed, even for a "non-living" wage - because in the latter case it's easy for government to make up the difference in a way that's fair to everyone, whereas paying their full living costs is just that much harder.

Please don’t say you actually believe the talking point that if it weren’t for regulation factory jobs would come back or do you believe on the high end that tech companies are laying people off because of regulation?

He's saying that a world where someone can't get hired for a $15 an hour job would be better if they could still work an $8 job instead of being unable to find work at all or being pushed into multiple part-time roles.

The true cost of labor is paid for by taxes. The bottom 50% in the US pay little to negative taxes due to government benefits. Most taxes are paid by the rich. Therefore, the true cost of labor is paid for by the rich, rather than by consumers in the form of higher prices.

That always ignore the 8.5%% everyone pays in taxes for FICA that really just goes into the general fund - or the additional 8.1% in taxes that your employer pays in on your behalf. If you are an independent contractor - like even an uber driver is - you pay the entire 16.2%

What happens when private industry colludes to decide what "market" wages are?

This has literally happened even in Big Tech, leading to lawsuits within the last decade.

If a business can't pay a person working full time to satisfy their basic needs, their business model is not viable. If they can and don't pay so, it's plain exploitation. Ex. Walmart employees can't support themselves and rely on social services despite having a full time job.

Do you feel the same way about all of the companies that are not profitable and only are in business because they have a website with “.ai” and they can get funding from YC?

While the first generation American has to scrounge up for a franchise that only nets $70K a year?

That's comparing Apples to tortoises. If an investor wants to invest/gamble on a startup, it's their prerogative. Same as if Bob's uncle wants to give him a small loan to buy into a franchise. I still expect both of them to pay rightful living wages to their employees. Owner's business problems are not the employees problem

No it’s the same thing, no one is going to invest in a company losing millions a year to start a McDonalds franchise - certainly not YC.

Bobs uncle doesn’t have the kind of money that YC has. It’s the ultimate hypocrisy and “let them eat cake” kind of talk.

From when minimum wage was first established:

> “It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.”

> FDR

It was supposed to be a "living wage".

Letting companies pay less than a living wage and providing a robust government safety net just subsidizes businesses using government tax money. The biggest beneficiaries of this are companies like Wal Mart, who gets effectively subsidized to the tune of $6B+ a year because so many of its employees are on SNAP and similar low income programs[1].

[1] https://www.ufcw.org/press-releases/wal-mart-has-highest-num...

So I ask you the same question, should the minimum wage be $35 in Forsyth County for a single person and should they automatically get a raise to $45/hour if they have a child?

Everyone loves bringing up Walmart. But should that franchiser who is only netting $70k a year now also be paying $35 an hour?

And again, I find it rich that tech workers living off the tits of VC funding can tsk tsk about companies that need to actually have a profitable business model can’t pay their workers $75k a year (the living wage for Forsyth county, GA) no matter what their job is.

Looks like Forsyth County is the richest county in Georgia and has a median household income of apparently $140k/yr (and median home price of ~$500k), so ballpark something close to that hourly rate does seem necessary if you want to have a median life *within that county*.

But nobody is advocating for setting the minimum wage equal to what it would cost to comfortably live in the wealthiest part of a state.

So now we want to set it to the poorest county in the state? The middle? Where there are no jobs? Do the people who work at the Walmart in Forsyth not deserve to a “livable wage”?

I didn’t randomly choose Forsyth County. I use to live there.

Or should they have to do an hour commute from a lower cost of living area in metro Atlanta?

What is living wage based on single? Head of household with kids?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com