> Who is to say what is the best wage? Should the government decide what people's wages should be?
I don't think the government should dictate exactly what a person's wage should be but setting a minimum makes perfect sense because otherwise businesses pay slave wages and use taxpayer money to subsidize their labor expenses.
As a taxpayer I don't want to my taxes spent on food stamps for employees working 40 hours a week just because some greedy company wants to put money that should go to those workers into their own pockets.
As a government, I wouldn't want the limited amount of available welfare funds going to people who are working to support themselves just because companies don't want to pay them a living wage.
You can argue all day that workers should be able to negotiate higher wages on their own and refuse to work for anyone who doesn't give them wages they consider fair, but we know that isn't an accurate description of reality. Some of the largest employers in the country have been a net drain on tax payers and directly contribute to high numbers of welfare recipients. Anti-union actions have weakened employee's ability to negotiate for fair compensation. Large corporations enter areas and eliminate competing businesses leaving local residents with fewer options for employment.
Like many cases, if companies hadn't exploited the system to the point where it is hurting people and causing a widespread harm I'd be more inclined to agree government should stay out of it, but that's where we are now.
> minimum makes perfect sense because otherwise businesses pay slave wages
Why is being unemplyed at 30U$S better than employed at 3U$D? It is clear that there are non-salary benefits to work that arent covered in MW. Thats why internships exist. Places that serve housing or food, like colleges, shelters, kitchens etc could afford to hire more people.
> As a taxpayer I don't want to my taxes spent on food stamps for employees working 40 hours a week just because some greedy company wants to put money that should go to those workers into their own pockets.
That is a complaint to the government. A private business has no control over subsidy policy. When you say you dont want to pay for those subsidies, why would businesses want to do it for you? You are merely transferring a burden from yourself unto another.
----------------
Another important thing: MW is taxed significantly. Why doesn't the gov raise actual wages by reducing the tax burden? MW in california is taxed at 20%!
In fact, working for shitty pay is WORSE than being unemployed – you spend hours a day doing work that doesn't lead to any personal growth and just takes up your time and health AND still can't afford to live. But in desperation you'd still hang on to that, because what else to do? Beg on the street? Just die?
That's no way to treat people, but I assure you, many executives would not hesitate to sentence their employees to such fate if they could. They would squeeze the poor out like lemons and just throw them out when they're done. That's because companies are authoritarian and their ruling class have no obligation at all to people at the bottom instead preferring to enrich themselves. That's why trickle–down economics is fiction. The government however is democratic and supposed to prevent exploitation of its people. Hence the minimum wage.
> That is a complaint to the government. A private business has no control over subsidy policy. When you say you dont want to pay for those subsidies
I do want to pay for them though. I just want them to go to people who aren't working. People temporarily between jobs, people physically unable to work, etc. If someone is working they should be making enough to provide for themselves, anything less is a slave wage.
I do agree that people who are poor should be paying very little in taxes. However, most of the income taxes people making MW pay now are returned to them at the end of the year.
I don't think the government should dictate exactly what a person's wage should be but setting a minimum makes perfect sense because otherwise businesses pay slave wages and use taxpayer money to subsidize their labor expenses.
As a taxpayer I don't want to my taxes spent on food stamps for employees working 40 hours a week just because some greedy company wants to put money that should go to those workers into their own pockets.
As a government, I wouldn't want the limited amount of available welfare funds going to people who are working to support themselves just because companies don't want to pay them a living wage.
You can argue all day that workers should be able to negotiate higher wages on their own and refuse to work for anyone who doesn't give them wages they consider fair, but we know that isn't an accurate description of reality. Some of the largest employers in the country have been a net drain on tax payers and directly contribute to high numbers of welfare recipients. Anti-union actions have weakened employee's ability to negotiate for fair compensation. Large corporations enter areas and eliminate competing businesses leaving local residents with fewer options for employment.
Like many cases, if companies hadn't exploited the system to the point where it is hurting people and causing a widespread harm I'd be more inclined to agree government should stay out of it, but that's where we are now.