this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
1054 points (95.4% liked)

Work Reform

9994 readers
133 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ApathyTree@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Why should the government support bad businesses? Serious question, because we socialize losses (tax-paid anssistance) and privatize profits (they keep it, regardless how many employees are on assistance).

We do that already with welfare for people working a surprising number of places (Walmart and McDonald’s are prime examples, where they have published budgets assuming you will get government assistance)

Why is that ok, but requiring living wages isn’t?

[–] Habahnow@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I was imagining that in terms of tax breaks. The reason being you're pay is not tied to the number of your children. If we say minimum wage is enough to cover 2 children, then people have a financial incentive and advantage if they don't have children. Compare that to minimum wage addresses Mainly your own costs with tax breaks and credits helping to cover child costs.

[–] ApathyTree@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 9 months ago

So? Who cares if people have a financial incentive to not have kids. That have that advantage now, too.

Why is it a bad thing to pay people enough for two kids even if they choose not to have them? And why should taxes be paying for this shit when companies make plenty of money to cover the lot of it? That’s just silly.