McDonalds: "What, my peon, you don't work two full time jobs?"

[Sheilbh]

Don't working folks in the UK get various benefits?

Like what?

Why?

A franchise owner is willing to pay someone $7.25 an hour to flip burgers.  Many people are currently willing to flip burgers at that wage.  Why should we tell them they cannot?

Because if it isn't enough to cover minimums then the state steps in to cover the difference. Many people are willing to work at that rate because they've little to no choice and we've got a system that doesn't let them live under that minimum level. But why should all taxpayers bear the costs of bringing wages up to a minimum level for a few employers?

Clicking through Syt's article I see this:

"I think the system seems to be working the way it is — not that it's working perfectly," he says, adding, "In general, the government is making sure these people's basic needs are met, which is an appropriate role of government."

And I disagree fundamentally. I don't think an appropriate role for government is subsidising low wages.

[Admiral Yi]

Like what?

I dunno.  Housing allowance, child raising allowance, big blocks of cheese, whatever.

Because if it isn't enough to cover minimums then the state steps in to cover the difference. Many people are willing to work at that rate because they've little to no choice and we've got a system that doesn't let them live under that minimum level. But why should all taxpayers bear the costs of bringing wages up to a minimum level for a few employers?

I don't see how the taxpayer is better off giving free money to an unemployed person rather than to a working person.

[Josquius]

You definitely should be able to survive on minimum wage and anyone who says different deserves shooting. Or at least a life on minimum wage.
This doesn't eliminate people then wanting to get a better job; since when has mere survival been a goal to aim for?

I don't see how the taxpayer is better off giving free money to an unemployed person rather than to a working person.

That's not what he said at all.

[Admiral Yi]

That's not what he said at all.

Right.  It's what I said.

[Josquius]

That's not what he said at all.

Right.  It's what I said.

...
In that case...
Vanilla coke is the greatest of all cokes.

[Ideologue]

"In work?" 

"To hospital."

Where is it written that a job serving french fries ought to pay a salary that someone can live comfortably on?

Critique of the Gotha Program.

[Camerus]

I simply do not understand this issue.

Where is it written that a job serving french fries ought to pay a salary that someone can live comfortably on?

When did that assumption become the paradigm to judge this kind of stuff on?

I certainly never expected that to be the case - when a job at minimum wage is the best you can get, you aren't living alone, you have roomates to share expenses, and they probably have shitty jobs as well, and you guys all live in some shitty apartment and think "Wow, my job sucks I really should get a better one so I can afford a car and a non-shitty apartment and won't have to put up with these assholes anymore".

A full time job flipping burgers at McDonalds doesn't pay enough to live an "average" lifestyle? No fucking shit! That is why you should aspire to a bit more.

It isn't why we should just ignore the market rates and decide everyone must make enough to live an average lifestyle with a far below average job.

Yes, and nor should one live in a tornado prone region.   

[Admiral Yi]

Yes, and nor should one live in a tornado prone region.   

I don't see the connection.

[Ideologue]

Yes, and nor should one live in a tornado prone region.   

I don't see the connection.

Me neither.  At least you leave Kansas.  Good luck trying to leave penury.

[Admiral Yi]

The basic welfare programs in the US are food stamps and Section 8 housing vouchers.  Both are means tested, meaning you have to be earning under some threshold amount per year.  Note that you don't have to be earning *zero.* In fact, arguably our most successful welfare program is the Earned Income Tax Credit, which tops off income.  That one is specifically designed to reward work, and you get zero if you don't work at all.

So this really seems like a case of leaping to damn the fast food industry without thinking through the issue.

[Gups]

Markets work both ways, Yi. It appearsthat a lot of workers on minimum wage woudl not be able to work without top up benefits. Does it not follow that the state is effectively subsidising McDonalds and other companies by making up the difference.

E.g Company A pays a worker $7.50 per hour. Company B pays a worker £12.50 an hour. The Gubbermint tops up workers at company A so that they earn the equivalent of £12.50.

Company B will soon reduce its wages. It is paying more for the same thing and does not even have a recruitment advantage since workers are no better off at company B.

[Admiral Yi]

Markets work both ways, Yi. It appearsthat a lot of workers on minimum wage woudl not be able to work without top up benefits. Does it not follow that the state is effectively subsidising McDonalds and other companies by making up the difference.

E.g Company A pays a worker $7.50 per hour. Company B pays a worker £12.50 an hour. The Gubbermint tops up workers at company A so that they earn the equivalent of £12.50.

Company B will soon reduce its wages. It is paying more for the same thing and does not even have a recruitment advantage since workers are no better off at company B.

Now I'm not an expert on these programs, so I could be wrong, but my understanding is they "fade out" as your income climbs, so that employees are not disincentivized from seeking higher paying work.  So no, I don't think your conclusion obtains.  Otherwise, we'd have a lot of people earning minimum wage then a giant dead zone of no one earning $7.50><$12.50 or whatever, which is not the case.

[jimmy olsen]

Vanilla coke is the greatest of all cokes.

The first time I've agreed with Tyr on something in a long time. It's disconcerting to say the least. 

[Gups]

Sure. That deals with extreme example but not the general principle that taxpayers should not have  to subsidise companies utilising cheap labour and that such subsidies distorts the labour market. 

And the phase out brings its own problems, at least in the UK, where the benefit of earning an extra £ an hour is heavily reduced by a reduction in top up welfare. I xcan't be bothered to look it up but I recall that at certain points on the scale the effective "tax" rate was 90%.

[Gups]

Vanilla coke is the greatest of all cokes.

The first time I've agreed with Tyr on something in a long time. It's disconcerting to say the least. 

Imagine how he feels.