I'm not interested in discussing if minimum wage is good or bad. This is a much more narrow question. In my youth I used to believe that employers had a moral obligation to pay their employees a living wage. As I have aged...I have abandoned that belief because I could find no compelling reason why it should be so.

So what are the compelling reasons an employer should be obligated to provide all the means of living(the cash equivalent of such in our society) for an employee?

Failure to pay a living wage can lead to massive increases in employee churn, leaving the employer with a chronically under-trained workforce that possesses low morale.

If (a) full time job(s) is incapable of providing basic necessities (not a living wage) then people are forced into government assistance programs, generally not viewed as a desirable outcome.

(May 10, 2014 at 1:02 am)eyemixer Wrote: Failure to pay a living wage can lead to massive increases in employee churn, leaving the employer with a chronically under-trained workforce that possesses low morale.

You are arguing that it is just good business sense to pay a living wage....which is highly situational. This has nothing to do with the morality.

(May 10, 2014 at 1:02 am)eyemixer Wrote: If (a) full time job(s) is incapable of providing basic necessities (not a living wage) then people are forced into government assistance programs, generally not viewed as a desirable outcome.

You don't want the state to be responsible for providing the means of living so therefore it falls on the employer? Why can't the state be responsible?....why does it have to be the employer?

You're right, the state should be responsible for paying the employees of private companies?

Come to think of it: Why not just abolish private employment all together, and have the state employ everyone?

That should work out great, right?

(May 10, 2014 at 1:13 am)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: You're right, the state should be responsible for paying the employees of private companies?

Come to think of it: Why not just abolish private employment all together, and have the state employ everyone?

That should work out great, right?

Your point is irrelevant.

Employees do not work for free. Employers will have to pay them to attract them.

(May 10, 2014 at 1:07 am)Heywood Wrote:

(May 10, 2014 at 1:02 am)eyemixer Wrote: Failure to pay a living wage can lead to massive increases in employee churn, leaving the employer with a chronically under-trained workforce that possesses low morale.

You are arguing that it is just good business sense to pay a living wage....which is highly situational. This has nothing to do with the morality.

Fair point.

(May 10, 2014 at 1:07 am)Heywood Wrote:

(May 10, 2014 at 1:02 am)eyemixer Wrote: If (a) full time job(s) is incapable of providing basic necessities (not a living wage) then people are forced into government assistance programs, generally not viewed as a desirable outcome.

You don't want the state to be responsible for providing the means of living so therefore it falls on the employer? Why can't the state be responsible?....why does it have to be the employer?

To clarify, do you feel anyone is responsible for providing a means of living?

Employers owe their workers a living wage because those employees are the only reason they have one.

(May 10, 2014 at 1:23 am)Heywood Wrote:

(May 10, 2014 at 1:13 am)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: You're right, the state should be responsible for paying the employees of private companies?

Come to think of it: Why not just abolish private employment all together, and have the state employ everyone?

That should work out great, right?

Your point is irrelevant.

Employees do not work for free. Employers will have to pay them to attract them.

Your point that employers should not have to pay employees enough to live on, and that the taxpayer (read: other employees) should pay a portion of the wages of other private employees is nonsensically circular.

Where do you think state funds come from? The moon?

Tell you what: how about we just raise taxes on the employers, and hand that money back to the employees. That way, you're happy, and the employees can continue to work, and the rest of us don't have to pay more taxes so that employers can have subsidized cheap labor.

Woodie - fine theist that he is - would like to see workers starve to death for the enrichment of their employers.

I'm going to go with .. because the rest of us shouldn't have to subsidize the workers of cheapskate business owners who expect us to make their business plan work.