- Nov 2018
- Rocky Mountains
Perhaps the better way to phrase your argument is the obverse-- While some will find themselves out of work, surely others will benefit from a government-imposed "living wage"Artificially increasing the cost of labor puts a downward pressure on job creation. While some will surely benefit from a government-imposed "living wage" others will find themselves out of work.
In the narrowest sense, perhaps that is true. However, the employer who needs employees must concern himself/herself with the quality and availability of workers, so it becomes a concern, if not a responsibility, of the employer to employ workers who can afford to work. One can even argue that a "responsible" employer who wants the business to survive, will be concerned about the welfare of employees.It is not an employer's responsibility to ensure your labor is, or remains, economically worthwhile; it's yours
How did you arrive at that conclusion? Be very specific about how much social support is sufficient for you to objectively make that claim.Society funds up to 12 years of public education and highly subsidizes community colleges. Libraries, with their thousands of books and their available computers with internet access, are also free.
Thus there is little excuse for those able-bodied and of sound mind to lack marketable job skills. It's primarily a question of effort, and try as we might, there's no subsidy that can instill a work ethic.
For example, how much LESS of all these opportunities would be too little to support your claim.
I suspect that, rather than being objective proof for your argument, you are just using a public library or public schooling as a rationalization to blame the victims of economic conditions for their plight.