Comment by bumby
20 days ago
>That just makes those people unemployable
Or, put differently, it makes the profits of the companies who hire them unsustainable. IMO allowing an non-livable wage in order to subsidize profits isn't a great policy.
20 days ago
>That just makes those people unemployable
Or, put differently, it makes the profits of the companies who hire them unsustainable. IMO allowing an non-livable wage in order to subsidize profits isn't a great policy.
When the company has an unprofitable business model, it goes out of business.
You missed the point with an overly simplistic take. They shouldn’t be (more) profitable by essentially having the government subsidize the wages of their employees. That means we, the taxpayers, are subsidizing their profits. I’m pro-capitalism, but not the type that requires tax dollars to maintain profitability and margins. If their only means of profitability is to pay non-living wages, I generally don’t want them in business because it creates an underclass as a means to profit.
(To add some nuance, I think it’s ok in some cases for short duration, like subsidizing new industries or those related to national emergencies, if it doesn’t become a long-term strategy. In general, those that pay extremely low wages are not part of those categories)
I guess a more pointed question is: do you think companies with a model that pays sub-standard wages should have their profits propped up by tax dollars? That's not my personal ideal of well-functioning capitalism.
Not true. The way you can stay in business is by socializing your costs. The more handouts and subsidies you can get from government, the longer you can stay in business despite the inefficiencies of your business.
Walmart and McDonald's are good examples of this.