• CableMonster@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    First problem is that “living wage” is a meaningless term because it will very by multiples depending on where you live and your family size/structure. The next problem is that people dont just do a job that needs to be done, they can literally be worth less than you pay them. If they keep making mistakes, or you cant trust that they will correctly do the job or whatever. It can just not be worth the money or extra labor to employ them.

    • Seleni@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Right, which is, as the other person said, why you fire them if they don’t do a good job. You don’t keep a mistake-maker and pay them less, you hire someone who can do the job and pay them well.

      And how is it ‘meaningless’? You just defined it: a wage allowing someone to live in the place they’re located. So yes, it changes from place to place. That’s not ‘meaningless’, it’s ‘regional’. And you should still pay someone a living wage.

      I don’t understand why you’re so opposed to it. Why do you want people suffering and in poverty for providing services? If you work, you should be able to eat and live, full stop. Even if it’s only in the cheaper parts of your town.

      • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Exactly, so what do you do with people that are not valuable enough to pay a “living wage”?

        • Seleni@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          For the love of…

          I guess I need to use simple words and shorter sentences with you.

          If you hire a person, you pay them a living wage.

          If they’re not doing their job right, train them better.

          If they still don’t work out, fire them.

          There. Is. No. Reason. Not. To. Pay. Workers. A. Living. Wage.

          None.

          And you still haven’t answered my question. Why are you so enamored of exploiting workers?

          • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Great, we are back to exactly where we were. What does society do with people that are not valuable enough to pay a “living wage”?

              • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Your question has nothing to do with what I said and is a strawman. How about my question or are we just doing strawmen now?

                • Seleni@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  It has everything to do with it as you are very insistent on underpaying people for some reason. You have yet to state that reason.

                  To answer your question I would need more information. Exactly what do you mean by ‘not valuable enough to earn a living wage’?

                  • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    It has everything to do with it as you are very insistent on underpaying people for some reason.

                    Strawman

                    Some people are not valuable enough as workers to get paid a living wage, what do they do for employment or income?