Why is it the employer's responsibility to provide a living wage?

[Tonus]

I've always found the exact opposite. In my experience it was always the work-shy brown-nosers who got promoted because they wouldn't be missed compared to the people who do the work. Basically if you're the best shelf stacker in the store (or whatever you do) you'll never get promoted.

I think that depends on the type of business and/or the department. I work for an engineering firm, and while politics plays its part, people also need to know what they're doing and show that they can handle the work that comes with a promotion. Promoting someone for no other reason than sucking up is very bad for business-- you have to pay them more money and they are not likely to earn it back.

For lesser positions, it mostly comes down to how difficult you can make it to replace you and how much of a case you can make for a raise. If you make yourself sufficiently indispensable, you can agitate for more money without worrying about being replaced. If you aren't willing to get in there and do the tough negotiating, then you're likely to get less than you could.

I suppose that in a place like Wal-mart, or a department like the warehouse where items are stored, it's easier to play at petty politics because the workers are doing a job that's simple to learn and therefore they are easy to replace. Kissing up to an asshole supervisor might be the most efficient way to keep the job, and if a person lacks ambition I guess that will be as far as they get. All the assistance in the world won't make up for a lack of desire.

Me, I don't like to bother with the headaches of negotiating, so I'm going to earn some basic IT certifications before the end of the year and quit next summer. It'll suck for them, they've given me so many different responsibilities at such a relatively low wage that they're likely to collectively faint when I present my letter of resignation, but that won't be my problem. I'll be going off and doing my own thing with a pretty good fallback-- several IT certifications and 18 years of network management.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Their is no social contract.

Really.

What are your thoughts on the relationship of the authors and signatories of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution and the philosophy of Jean-Jaques Rousseau?

ETA - John Locke as well, while you're at it.

Also, you know, Thomas Hobbes.

Let me break that down for the hard of understanding. Of course there is no literal social contract. What I'm referring to is the general agreement that the status quo is tenable. Without that agreement, you have chaos, unrest and perhaps even revolution. At some point, starving while I'm waiting for begrudgingly provided healthcare out of the emergency room just stops looking like a better alternative than looting and taking what I need. We have enjoyed almost 200 years of civil order. Don't think that is an inevitable outcome. Stability and civilization only seem assured to the historically shortsighted and dimwitted.

Don't call it a contract. A contract is a mutual agreement between all parties involved. Call it a social edict because that is what it is. You don't want agreement, you want to impose your will on others. You want to force people to pay a wage that is different then what is agreed upon by the parties involved in the exchange. You think that by calling it contract you give your edict legitimacy...but that trick only fools the halfwits.

Uh, what? You really have no idea where the phrase "social contract" comes from. It was proposed by Thomas Hobbes, who saw government as a necessary evil, a leviathan to protect the people.

I don't understand what your issue is, here. If employers can't pay their employees enough to live on working full time, the burden of corporate welfare should not fall on the government. If an employer wants to exchange money for labor, what is so difficult about understanding those employees need to be able to afford housing, transportation and food to continue employment.

That's not the government's job. It's the employer's job.

[KUSA]

If employers can't pay their employees enough to live on working full time, the burden of corporate welfare should not fall on the government. If an employer wants to exchange money for labor, what is so difficult about understanding those employees need to be able to afford housing, transportation and food to continue employment.

That's not the government's job. It's the employer's job.

What about the unemployed? Should the employer be forced to hire them because they need food and housing?

---

But if they're in a work situation where they're not getting a fair wage, what are the chances they're going to progress beyond that anyway?

I started out making beans and worked my ass off to get noticed and advanced. Everywhere I have ever worked I was known for giving more than I took. It always payed off.

Sure sometimes the brownnoser get the promotion but most businesses want people that get things done.

[Rampant.A.I.]

That's an irrelevant equivocation. And considering you've already told someone to go live behind a dumpster because their rent is too high, what do you care?

[KUSA]

That's an irrelevant equivocation. And considering you've already told someone to go live behind a dumpster because their rent is too high, what do you care?

I actually do care but I like to play devil's advocate to stimulate the conversation.
And I only pointed out that the dumpster was an option if the current residence was not appealing.

[Heywood]

Really.

What are your thoughts on the relationship of the authors and signatories of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution and the philosophy of Jean-Jaques Rousseau?

ETA - John Locke as well, while you're at it.

Also, you know, Thomas Hobbes.

Don't call it a contract. A contract is a mutual agreement between all parties involved. Call it a social edict because that is what it is. You don't want agreement, you want to impose your will on others. You want to force people to pay a wage that is different then what is agreed upon by the parties involved in the exchange. You think that by calling it contract you give your edict legitimacy...but that trick only fools the halfwits.

Uh, what? You really have no idea where the phrase "social contract" comes from. It was proposed by Thomas Hobbes, who saw government as a necessary evil, a leviathan to protect the people.

I don't understand what your issue is, here. If employers can't pay their employees enough to live on working full time, the burden of corporate welfare should not fall on the government. If an employer wants to exchange money for labor, what is so difficult about understanding those employees need to be able to afford housing, transportation and food to continue employment.

That's not the government's job. It's the employer's job.

This is not an argument. This is you dictating that it is the employers responsibility. Why is it the employers responsibility? You claim the social contract.....which is really just an edict and not an argument on why it should be the employers responsibility. Calling your edict part of the social contract doesn't make for a persuasive argument.

If I grant you that some nebulous social contract exists, can you provide an argument that contained within that "contract" is a clause the employers must pay a living wage?

[Whateverist]

Looks like the self appointed arbiter of terminology has ruled out the use of 'contract' in the current discussion. Like King Cnut before him he seems to think his petty opinion can turn back its historical use. Go forth mighty Heywood, dispatch the sea.

[jesus_wept]

I've always found the exact opposite. In my experience it was always the work-shy brown-nosers who got promoted because they wouldn't be missed compared to the people who do the work. Basically if you're the best shelf stacker in the store (or whatever you do) you'll never get promoted.

I think that depends on the type of business and/or the department. I work for an engineering firm, and while politics plays its part, people also need to know what they're doing and show that they can handle the work that comes with a promotion. Promoting someone for no other reason than sucking up is very bad for business-- you have to pay them more money and they are not likely to earn it back.

For lesser positions, it mostly comes down to how difficult you can make it to replace you and how much of a case you can make for a raise. If you make yourself sufficiently indispensable, you can agitate for more money without worrying about being replaced. If you aren't willing to get in there and do the tough negotiating, then you're likely to get less than you could.

I suppose that in a place like Wal-mart, or a department like the warehouse where items are stored, it's easier to play at petty politics because the workers are doing a job that's simple to learn and therefore they are easy to replace. Kissing up to an asshole supervisor might be the most efficient way to keep the job, and if a person lacks ambition I guess that will be as far as they get. All the assistance in the world won't make up for a lack of desire.

Me, I don't like to bother with the headaches of negotiating, so I'm going to earn some basic IT certifications before the end of the year and quit next summer. It'll suck for them, they've given me so many different responsibilities at such a relatively low wage that they're likely to collectively faint when I present my letter of resignation, but that won't be my problem. I'll be going off and doing my own thing with a pretty good fallback-- several IT certifications and 18 years of network management.

I'm not saying they can't do their job, i'm saying if you're the best on the CNC machine you'll probably be stuck on it for life.

I worked in engineering for Rolls Royce before I become a tiler BTW. I got made redundant from there and worked in a few warehouses first though.

[Zen Badger]

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?

And you are a good moral christian..... But you can't see why an employer should pay the people who make his wealth possible a living wage.......

You sir.....are a prick.

[Cato]

This is not an argument. This is you dictating that it is the employers responsibility. Why is it the employers responsibility? You claim the social contract.....which is really just an edict and not an argument on why it should be the employers responsibility. Calling your edict part of the social contract doesn't make for a persuasive argument.

If I grant you that some nebulous social contract exists, can you provide an argument that contained within that "contract" is a clause the employers must pay a living wage?

It is society's responsibility and the state seems to be the only means with which to enact meaningful change. Employers could and should fix the problem, but are obviously not interested. Employers are partly responsible since they are the means of disbursement and therefore the primary mechanism we have chosen to allocate and share resources. They have proven to be disinterested in that they have continued to suppress wages to the point where people toil full time without being able to afford the bare necessities of life.