> And it's fairer in that the burden is shared collectively rather than just by some industries.
This is where we disagree.
Companies that employ workers below subsistence wages are actually being indirectly subsidized collectively by every single taxpayer.
Those underpaid employees are the ones who then go on to collect public benefits to make up the difference between survival and their take-home pay, and those benefits come out of our tax dollars.
Allowing employers to pay below subsistence wages is corporate welfare.
All this bill does is tip the scales back to where they need to be: if you as a business are not paying a living wage to your employees, you're effectively forcing the taxpayer to pay the part of the salary you're not interested in paying.
This is also the interest the state has in the matter, as not doing so negatively impacts the state.
No more mooching.
> Goldman Sachs doesn't get hurt by a minimum wage, but small business owners, such as those running a convenience store, do.
And I'm sorry but those businesses wouldn't exist without the government passively subsidizing them by providing benefits to the workers they're stiffing.
If these are the kinds of businesses we want more of, it should be via an explicit, active subsidy program. If not, they will have to go out of business or find a way to make the economics work. That's capitalism.
This is where we disagree.
Companies that employ workers below subsistence wages are actually being indirectly subsidized collectively by every single taxpayer.
Those underpaid employees are the ones who then go on to collect public benefits to make up the difference between survival and their take-home pay, and those benefits come out of our tax dollars.
Allowing employers to pay below subsistence wages is corporate welfare.
All this bill does is tip the scales back to where they need to be: if you as a business are not paying a living wage to your employees, you're effectively forcing the taxpayer to pay the part of the salary you're not interested in paying.
This is also the interest the state has in the matter, as not doing so negatively impacts the state.
No more mooching.
> Goldman Sachs doesn't get hurt by a minimum wage, but small business owners, such as those running a convenience store, do.
And I'm sorry but those businesses wouldn't exist without the government passively subsidizing them by providing benefits to the workers they're stiffing.
If these are the kinds of businesses we want more of, it should be via an explicit, active subsidy program. If not, they will have to go out of business or find a way to make the economics work. That's capitalism.