> our community relies on to supplement their income, supporttheirfamilies
While their marketing promotes driving as a fun side gig, their PR defending their labor practices includes supporting families.
It's not surprising coming from corporate PR, but the selective choice of arguments is pretty obvious.
But then again, in a society where the general populace's basic welfare is largely left to market forces, maybe it's not a stretch for corporations to make the claim that supporting families is among their side-effects (but not objectives).
You can't really expect to be paid a living wage at a job that can be done by 14 year olds, can you? There is also a greater supply of low skilled labor available, lowering price of labor. I think you should work 1 to 2 crappy jobs building skills until you can find a single good job. McDonald's also has programs that offer college tuition assistance.
Do you have a source to back that claim? I can't find anything that states "full time" equals "living wage". Only referring to the minimum number of hours an employee has to work from receive benefits "part time" employees typically don't get, like paid time off or health insurance.
Additionally the Fair Labor Standards Act (for US anyway) does not give any formal definition of "full time" work, and is up to the employer. Only that covered nonexempt workers working more than 40 hours are entitled to overtime.
It's fine to disagree, but at least provide some sort of substance to your argument...
It takes your full job time, it says that there is a measurable amount of job you can have and that it is full with that one. Following that logic, if you fill all of your available job time, there is an assumption (mine and others) that it would provide simply because if you can't, you need more job to do so, making it not a full-time job.
The problem with your logic, is that you still don't define what "full time" equals. There are 24 hours in a day, so is full-time working 24 hours/day? Obviously that's not practical, but then where do you draw the line?
Any conclusion you come up with is completely subjective, and might fit for some people, and might not for others. Maybe someone's full-time job is someone else's part-time job.
That's not a problem with their logic, that's a problem of your pedantry.
Draw the line wherever you think it should be drawn. Their argument is still true. The argument doesn't change whether full-time is 25 hours or 75 hours.
Every single adult working whatever society agrees is "full time" should be able to live comfortably on those wages.
> Every single adult working whatever society agrees is "full time" should be able to live comfortably on those wages.
I agree that would be nice, it's just not possible in a free market. Is there any country where everyone lives comfortably working full time at any job?
> I agree that would be nice, it's just not possible in a free market. Is there any country where everyone lives comfortably working full time at any job?
I mean, except for historical edge cases, we have minimum wage and social welfare programs in Germany that can be used to supplement income if it's really not enough to drag you over the poverty line. While it is by no means perfect and there of course still is poverty and people requiring multiple jobs, if you work 40 hours you can rely on full social benefits, pay into your pension fund and at least live some form of life. The US isn't really a posterchild of how to treat employees w.r.t. wages, vacation, health care, ... the question of "everyone living comfortably" seems weird, of course not. How a society handles their poor/low-income earners is no black and white question, there's a huge range between giving corporations free reign and at least trying to improve living conditions for the majority of citizens.
That darn free market. If only there was some way to, idk, regulate it, or something. Unfortunately, it's an inevitable law of nature and we are helpless in the face of its wrath.
The free market doesn't leave people helpless, it empowers. With enough effort, you can do nearly anything. Additional regulation usually makes it harder for small business to operate.
Actually, let's just make the minimum wage $30/hr and everything will be great.
>I agree that would be nice, it's just not possible in a free market. Is there any country where everyone lives comfortably working full time at any job?
Yes. In my country (NL) the minimum wage, combined with a progressive tax system makes that everyone can live off one job, have health care for their family and education for their kids.
>Is there any country where everyone lives comfortably working full time at any job?
I was probably a bit hasty in asking this question, it's a bit silly.
That being said, I don't know if you can compare NL and US as it's population is 10x lower and as you mentioned has much higher taxes and government programs.
Also, for some reason I can't find recent poverty statistics for NL later than 2015, and I saw stats going from 11.6% to 14% which puts it fairly close to US 12.3%. I would expect given the massive social programs and minimum wage for this to be lower.
> Is there any country where everyone lives comfortably working full time at any job?
Every developed country except one. I can't believe you don't know that.
Last time I was in Australia I met a guy and his wife - they both work stacking shelves at Safeway (the very definition of minimum wage job). Not only are they paying for a house and have three kids, he has enough money for a project car (V8 something Australian) AND they fly to Bali every year for a holiday.
Yes, when you work a minimum wage full time job in a developed country you can have a very good life.
Interestingly, Australia currently has the highest minimum wage (in the world) but similar levels of poverty to the United States.
In addition, Australia has much higher taxes overall than US, but lower taxes for low-income earners.
I'm not an expert on economics by any means, but the population of the US is about 13x that of Australia and I don't know if it's possible to make a direct comparison between the two.
I think these issues are a lot more nuanced than that. Maybe I'm completely wrong, but it seems like diseconomies of scale could have an impact on how well the US operates and maybe requires a lot more tax dollars per capita than does Australia for the same things.
I mean, technically it's possible. It makes it hard because the supply of low-skilled labor is very high, and you can't bargain to be paid a higher wage for a position, if someone else is available to do it for less.
It's great that you understand how supply and demand works, but look beyond that.
At some point in the mid-term future, automation will take over enough labor that a sizeable chunk of the (educated, motivated) population won't be able to find a job at all. Supply non-zero, demand zero, ergo price zero.
That seems like an argument for basic income or similar. The topic at hand is raising minimum wage, which could only accelerate job loss due to automation.
Raising minimum wage might reduce the number of jobs, but 100% * ~0$ < 10% * 15$.
Many companies have wages low enough that people receive significant public assistance while working full time. That’s a terrible trend, either the work is valuable enough to pay a living wage or or does not need to be done. Allowing companies to pay below living wages is simply an inefficient drain on the economy.
Well work-life balance has to do with the individual. If you don't want to work crazy hours, don't take a job that makes you work crazy hours, or make it clear to your employer that you wont do that before starting your job.
>If you don't want to work crazy hours, don't take a job that makes you work crazy hours, or make it clear to your employer that you wont do that before starting your job.
Why do you think people have this ability and choose not to use it? Do you think they're all too stupid to think of it?
>Why do you think people have this ability and choose not to use it?
I can speculate but I couldn't know everyone's reasons. Employment is a contract, and people are free to either terminate it and find a new job, or negotiate the terms on getting hired. There will be consequences, presumably you may not get paid as much, or get promoted over someone else but you can still work a livable wage.
> Do you think they're all too stupid to think of it?
I don't think people are too stupid, I'd guess maybe they feel peer pressure to do it if others around them are doing the same thing.
While their marketing promotes driving as a fun side gig, their PR defending their labor practices includes supporting families.
It's not surprising coming from corporate PR, but the selective choice of arguments is pretty obvious.
But then again, in a society where the general populace's basic welfare is largely left to market forces, maybe it's not a stretch for corporations to make the claim that supporting families is among their side-effects (but not objectives).