Why is it the responsibility of private industry to support a “living wage?” Should we index on a single person living alone? A teenager living with their parents? A single mom of three kids? A single mom with a single disabled kid?

Private industry should concentrate on paying people their market wages. Government should tax industries and individuals and provide a safety net.

Let me tell you from first hand experience what happens when unions get involved with manufacturing industries where they can pick up and go elsewhere - they do. Growing up, the city I lived in had 5 factories - all but one left because of fights with unions.

Where I use to live in the burbs of Atlanta, according to the website, the living wage is $45 an hour. Should we have a minimum wage there of $45 an hour?

▲

cam_l an hour ago | parent | next [-]

>Why is it the responsibility of private industry to support a “living wage?”

Because if they don't, they are externalising the true costs of labour to the government, or the community.

Which is fine, by the way, but they cannot then turn around and oppose the cost of taxation needed for gov programs which support people who aren't receiving that living wage. Nor, and worse still, oppose a living wage and then force work people to work such long hours that they cannot sustain a community that can provide the extra support needed to maintain a decent life.

	▲	zozbot234 4 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The "true cost of labor" is set by the market. The cost to society of a person who can't find work because viable work opportunities have been destroyed by overregulation is unambiguously higher than that of the same person being gainfully employed, even for a "non-living" wage - because in the latter case it's easy for government to make up the difference in a way that's fair to everyone, whereas paying their full living costs is just that much harder.
	▲	nearbuy 38 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> Because if they don't, they are externalising the true costs of labour to the government, or the community. Does this mean anything or is it a circular definition? If we decide we'd like people to have at least the standard of living of a single person earning $40/hour, does that make $40/hour the "true cost of labor"? Could we just as easily raise our standards and say $50/hour is the true cost? The living wage is higher than what you would often have with no government intervention or safety net, so it's not a natural cost of labor in that sense.
	▲	raw_anon_1111 an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		So in Forsyth County GA where I use to live you think the minimum wage should be $30/hour? That’s what they said the livable wage is for a single person. If I have a child and I’m single should I automatically get a raise if $45 an hour?

▲

harshalizee an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

What happens when private industry colludes to decide what "market" wages are?

This has literally happened even in Big Tech, leading to lawsuits within the last decade.

If a business can't pay a person working full time to satisfy their basic needs, their business model is not viable. If they can and don't pay so, it's plain exploitation. Ex. Walmart employees can't support themselves and rely on social services despite having a full time job.

▲

raw_anon_1111 an hour ago | parent [-]

Do you feel the same way about all of the companies that are not profitable and only are in business because they have a website with “.ai” and they can get funding from YC?

While the first generation American has to scrounge up for a franchise that only nets $70K a year?

	▲	harshalizee 4 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That's comparing Apples to tortoises. If an investor wants to invest/gamble on a startup, it's their prerogative. Same as if Bob's uncle wants to give him a small loan to buy into a franchise. I still expect both of them to pay rightful living wages to their employees. Owner's business problems are not the employees problem