- Joined
- Jan 4, 2013
- Messages
- 9,122
- Reaction score
- 3,751
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
This is a question primarily addressed to conservatives and libertarians:
The arguments opposing unionization, living wages, minimum wages, minimum wage increases and government benefits for the working poor are primarily based on the argument that the lowest wage working poor deserve to be paid poorly because they have not made an effort to increase their education and/or skills. What out people who do not have the mental capacity for higher level jobs? I am not referring to the mentally or developmentally disabled, but the people at the lower end of average intelligence.
What kind of life are those lower intelligence, relatively unskilled workers entitled to when they work full time?
Should they be able to afford their own apartment, quality food, a car, health care, to raise children?
If they deserve more than a minimum wage can provide, should they be required to move to a less expensive region?
Should they go to private charities for support rather than get government benefits such as food stamps?
Is there a limit to how little an employer can pay such a person before it is immoral exploitation?
Is there a limit to how little an employer can pay such a person before it should be illegal exploitation?
Would your answers be the same if the obstacle to obtaining more skills/education are not intelligence, but other circumstances such as having children to raise?
Would your answers be the same if the reason that the worker hasn't obtained more skills/education is that they have other life priorities (i.e. working on their acting career), or they just don't want to( fearful or lazy)?
If these different types of unskilled workers (the unintelligent, the life circumstance and the lazy/other priorities) should be treated differently, what mechanism/laws should be used to create these divisions and allow for different treatment of the three types?
The arguments opposing unionization, living wages, minimum wages, minimum wage increases and government benefits for the working poor are primarily based on the argument that the lowest wage working poor deserve to be paid poorly because they have not made an effort to increase their education and/or skills. What out people who do not have the mental capacity for higher level jobs? I am not referring to the mentally or developmentally disabled, but the people at the lower end of average intelligence.
What kind of life are those lower intelligence, relatively unskilled workers entitled to when they work full time?
Should they be able to afford their own apartment, quality food, a car, health care, to raise children?
If they deserve more than a minimum wage can provide, should they be required to move to a less expensive region?
Should they go to private charities for support rather than get government benefits such as food stamps?
Is there a limit to how little an employer can pay such a person before it is immoral exploitation?
Is there a limit to how little an employer can pay such a person before it should be illegal exploitation?
Would your answers be the same if the obstacle to obtaining more skills/education are not intelligence, but other circumstances such as having children to raise?
Would your answers be the same if the reason that the worker hasn't obtained more skills/education is that they have other life priorities (i.e. working on their acting career), or they just don't want to( fearful or lazy)?
If these different types of unskilled workers (the unintelligent, the life circumstance and the lazy/other priorities) should be treated differently, what mechanism/laws should be used to create these divisions and allow for different treatment of the three types?