You argument is that I should take a pay cut, and all I have to do is lower my material conditions.
No. My first argument is that a job can have more benefits than wage and that a sub minimum wage job can lead to better material conditions than one with.
My second argument is that a surplus of job offers leads to better conditions for all and that minimum wage reduces that surplus to the advantage of the remaining employers.
You’re operating on the false premise that a decent wage and decent working conditions are mutually exclusive and that is the primary flaw in your entire argument.
But in an exploitive society where decent working conditions are not guaranteed for all, why limit the options for those who seek jobs?
But my main point is not that workers should work for less but that minimum wage masks the fact that market conditions are not to the advantage of the workers. Usually they would organize in unions to change that.
No. My first argument is that a job can have more benefits than wage and that a sub minimum wage job can lead to better material conditions than one with.
My second argument is that a surplus of job offers leads to better conditions for all and that minimum wage reduces that surplus to the advantage of the remaining employers.
You’re operating on the false premise that a decent wage and decent working conditions are mutually exclusive and that is the primary flaw in your entire argument.
No. Obviously many have that.
But in an exploitive society where decent working conditions are not guaranteed for all, why limit the options for those who seek jobs?
But my main point is not that workers should work for less but that minimum wage masks the fact that market conditions are not to the advantage of the workers. Usually they would organize in unions to change that.