• Habahnow
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Good point. I’d kinda expect the government to help in that situation more.

    • Apathy Tree@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • Apathy Tree@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 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.