I work or I starve. If I don't work, and I don't starve - someone else must be working.
If someones sole and only option was to work for Uber: Is Uber the one at fault here?
If Uber didn't exist and person had zero options, would this be neutral, worse, or better compared to the former scenario?
It's not a fallacy because people have different moral standards about whether you should be employed at $7.25 or unemployed at $15.
Personally I consider it my absolute right to mow lawns at $5/day if I choose to do it. If you think I'm not making enough money, you can give me more! Don't force the people alreaday paying me to pay more.
The EITC gives more benefits than any minimum wage will and more than any 1099 law reform.
There are so many easily addressable fallacies in this that I am not sure if I need to bother.
> If someones sole and only option was to work for Uber: Is Uber the one at fault here?
Nobody really cares who’s fault it is. Of course Uber is going to attempt to pay as little as they can for labor under existing laws.
> If Uber didn't exist and person had zero options, would this be neutral, worse, or better compared to the former scenario?
So, you mean if there was unfulfilled demand for transportation and a duopoly who abused labor didn’t exist?
> It's not a fallacy because people have different moral standards about whether you should be employed at $7.25 or unemployed at $15.
However, the real economy does actually exist and it is not possible to sustain any sort of lifestyle at $7.25 an hour. $15 is not even sustainable currently. So, to rephrase the question, should people working full-time be able to afford living in a house without government assistance, or should they be able to afford an apartment?
> Personally I consider it my absolute right to mow lawns at $5/day if I choose to do it.
I don’t think that grocery stores or landlords care about your beliefs. If you’re satisfied living in a tent by the interstate or outside and abandoned building, or at your parents house, or have a family or partner who can support you, that’s great. Otherwise, I suppose you can afford Steel Reserve, eat at a homeless shelter and sleep in a tent by the sidewalk at $5 an hour. However, such lifestyles incur significant expense to taxpayers.
> I work or I starve. If I don't work, and I don't starve - someone else must be working.
I have had jobs where I hardly worked at all, yet I received about 10 times minimum wage. Who is supporting the people in such positions?
I work or I starve. If I don't work, and I don't starve - someone else must be working.
If someones sole and only option was to work for Uber: Is Uber the one at fault here?
If Uber didn't exist and person had zero options, would this be neutral, worse, or better compared to the former scenario?
It's not a fallacy because people have different moral standards about whether you should be employed at $7.25 or unemployed at $15.
Personally I consider it my absolute right to mow lawns at $5/day if I choose to do it. If you think I'm not making enough money, you can give me more! Don't force the people alreaday paying me to pay more.
The EITC gives more benefits than any minimum wage will and more than any 1099 law reform.