• darkseer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    54
    ·
    11 months ago

    Let’s face it. Raising the minimum wage does nothing except create more minimum wage workers, eliminates jobs as those roles are merged with other roles and increases the cost of living exponentially so that it’s even more difficult to survive on minimum wage.

    • Hikiru@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      The only reason it would increase cost of living it because executives can’t handle having slightly less profit and always need to be increasing it. I don’t get why they can’t be satisfied with a stable stream of income when they’re already filthy rich. It’s past greed at that point.

      • darkseer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        It’s not even that. Our currency’s value isn’t based on a constant value like precious metals or jewelry. It’s based on the perceived strength of the US economy. Something even as negligible as an increase in the minimum wage devalues the currency.

        The best analogy I can make is that the corporate world is a ladder. Minimum wage is of course the first step on that ladder. The idea to get more financially secure is to climb the ladder until you feel that you make a comfortable living. Raising the minimum wage is like calling the first step Step 5, Step 7, Step 15, etc… It doesn’t change the fact that it’s still the first step on the ladder. What’s worse, every time they change the name of the step they knock the next step of the ladder out, making it more difficult for you to make it to the next step.

        In a way you can effectively argue that the minimum wage is a tool of the rich to keep the majority of the people poor.

      • Refurbished Refurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        11 months ago

        Publicly traded companies have a legal responsability to their shareholders to make financial decisions that result in more profit. Things like morals aren’t factored in.

        • Gameboy Homeboy @lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          11 months ago

          I’m not sure why this is being downvoted. It fucking sucks for sure, but it’s true. It’s one of the biggest flaws in our current system.

          • SamboT
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            11 months ago

            Yup. Money is the only language of public companies and that is why controlling ethical impact and climate impact should be handled by the government by extra taxation or fines that direct companies away from bad faith business strategies. I don’t personally see another way. The current infinite growth expectation is getting stupider every day.

            • J Lou@mastodon.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Regulation isn’t enough we need a different default behavior. To get a different behavior from companies, we need a new constituency for the leaders of the company to be accountable to. The most natural constituency is the people that work in that company. Then, their own social sympathies to the local community will play a role in their decision making, so the company will behave differently. That along with charging polluters for their social costs could address it

              • SamboT
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                Decisions shouldn’t be dictated by entry level people that have no experience simply because they are a local resident. The business being at odds with itself would produce more random results depending on the involvement of the employees.

                If fines and taxes were proportionate to harm done, then companies wouldn’t have any incentive to do harm. It’s simpler and it still allows high level decisions to be made with care and expertise. People rely on their employers to stay in business and support employees after all.

                • J Lou@mastodon.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  The leaders of the companies would be delegates of the workers in the firm (like a representative democracy).If firms are always worker coops, when interviewing candidates for jobs, they will factor in the fact that these new worker-members will have voting rights within the firm and make sure that they are qualified for that role as well.
                  The workers should be able to vote out leadership if they are bad

                  Fines and taxes are good for harms that the legal system can anticipate, which is not all

    • Nougat@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      You are 100% correct … unless the ownership class stops stealing fairly earned compensation from labor.