If a potential employee's "next best option" is a living wage instead of a starvation wage, then we'd all be better off "condemning" him to that. Whether we like it or not, when too many people can't put enough food into their mouths, or a reliable roof over their heads, civil unrest tends to occur. No one likes that, so if businesses can't carry their own weight and ensure that employees can survive off their wages, then the taxpayers will have to pick up their slack for them. And this is exactly what the article is describing. Don't like public-assistance programs? Then you're going to have to insist that business not be so short-sighted. Since you can't legislate against stupidity, you have to legislate against stupid business practices instead, such as predatory employment practices.
The "next best option" is worse, by definition. If he had a better option he wouldn't be asking you for a job. I am still unclear on how giving someone a job they want is noble at one salary level but shameful at another. This guy wants to work. He doesn't want to depend on public-assistance programs. He has a mark on his record which makes it tough to get hired. He is willing to work for $25,000. He doesn't have a better option. He looks like he will be as good a worker as your other applicants. How can it be better to deny him an income than to give him an income?
Are you sure you're replying to my comments? Because, if you would actually read my comments, you will discover they suggested the following: You pay whoever you believe to be qualified at least a living wage, not a starvation wage. Comment 1. Comment 2. Comment 3. You do this because if you don't, your employee will either fail or require public assistance which you will pay for anyhow with increased taxes. Comment 1. Comment 3. If you're too short-sighted to do this, poverty will increase to the point that civil disturbances are likely to arise and lawmakers will be forced to require you to pay a living wage no matter how funny you think paying a starvation wage is. Comment 3.
I have read the whole conversation carefully. Thanks for summing up your comments. They do not address my question: "How can it be better to deny him an income than to give him an income?" (I also don't see a response to "underpaying, compared to what?" If the salary is too low for the applicant to accept, they don't take the job. If they do accept it, what makes it "underpaying"?) Certainly, if you hire someone at 25K they might end up in trouble. If you do not hire them at 25K, they will have to take Plan B, either a different job with lower pay, or continuing unemployed, both of which seem all the more likely to land them in trouble. Do you believe that something else will happen? You assume that anyone working for $25,000 per year is on the road to ruin, even though 48% of American workers earn at that level or below, very few of them starving. If someone wants to take a job paying 25K, they demonstrate that they believe they will be better off with that job than without it. Why do you believe you know better?
Sorry, NotPhil, I think I've upset you. I am here to learn. If I talk to people I agree with, I probably won't learn much. Talking to someone I don't agree with gives me a chance to see things from a different perspective. For example, you made me recognize a way in which equal opportunity law can make things harder for those it is intended to help. Talking to people I disagree with is the best way I know to find out where I am wrong, so I can correct my misapprehensions and improve my ideas. In this case neither of us convinced the other, but I still enjoyed the interaction and appreciate your contributions.Are you trolling?
This question is totally unrelated to the subject we were discussing, but I am happy to respond to it.
That's great, but someone should tell you that if you act willfully obtuse and repeatedly try to change the subject whenever someone says something you don't agree with, few people will wish to talk to you about anything of significance and you won't learn much about their perspectives.If I talk to people I agree with, I probably won't learn much. Talking to someone I don't agree with gives me a chance to see things from a different perspective.
Hey hubski, is there an arbitration feature? I don't feel I have been obtuse. I will admit to being stubborn and a smartass. I didn't say so until later, but my interest is in the ethics of paying employees low wages. This is relevant to policy issues like minimum wage, as well as the much-discussed "sweatshop" phenomenon. My original question, about hiring someone at $25,000, was "What do you do?" NotPhil gave a utilitarian answer based on his belief that anyone who would accept this rate would not be a reliable long-term employee, so hiring them would be bad for business (and, eventually, society). That's fine, but it didn't get to my interest in the ethics of the situation. I thought that not every candidate would be unreliable just because of their willingness to work for that salary. I provided four examples of such people. NotPhil gave another utilitarian answer about how hiring three of these people would expose the employer to legal risk. That's fine too, and was an interesting point. Still hoping to explore the ethical angle, I asked about the fourth example, the one which was not subject to the practical issue of legal liability. I don't see any response to this case. NotPhil has repeated his belief that you should not hire at a low salary because "your employee will either fail or require public assistance which you will pay for anyhow with increased taxes." That can happen ... but what if it doesn't? Millions of people work at or below the salary we are talking about. They are not all failing or on welfare. I felt the thought experiment would be more interesting, but here's the real question: "Is it inherently unethical to pay an employee a low salary?" What perplexes me most is the idea that hiring someone at a low salary is bad because it will cause bad outcomes, presumably because the employee is not as well-off as he would be with a higher salary. But in my view, the result of not hiring them at a low rate is that they will be worse off than they would be making the low salary, so the bad outcomes are even more likely.
No. Personally, I don't think that finding people that agree with an argument (or the method) means that it is any more correct. IMO you both make good points. My opinion on the matter falls somewhere in the middle, and you conversation has provided good food for thought for me. That wouldn't change if an arbitrator weighed in. The reader can take away what he/she wishes.
I shall remain a fly on the wall though :)Hey hubski, is there an arbitration feature?
Nope. NotPhil's suggestion of #askhubski is not a bad one though if you wish to continue getting feedback. I'll say that I've enjoyed being a fly on the wall for this discussion. It was a good one.
What perplexes me most is the idea that hiring someone at a low salary is bad because it will cause bad outcomes, presumably because the employee is not as well-off as he would be with a higher salary. But in my view, the result of not hiring them at a low rate is that they will be worse off than they would be making the low salary, so the bad outcomes are even more likely. You could create a post asking this question and use the #askhubski tag. And, just to be clear, I did not suggest the $25k/yr. interviewees not be hired, I merely pointed out that, depending on how they answered the questions, they may end up being problems. You can avoid some of these problems by hiring any candidate, including some of the ones asking for a starvation wage, at a living wage. If you interpreted it otherwise and this was what caused you to run off on the "denying someone a wage" track, then I probably should have been more clear."Is it inherently unethical to pay an employee a low salary?"
Thanks for clarifying. I concluded that you would not hire them when you said
Sorry for jumping to conclusions. So, what would you do? mk and thenewgreen refer to this conversation in the past tense, and if you feel it has run its course, please feel free to say so. I will consider askinghubski, though I am wary of the amount of effort it might take to understand a lot of different people's positions. I haven't even gotten clarity on the terms "living wage" and "starvation wage" which you use as black and white categories. Here are the definitions you linked to: So there is some ambiguity about who will be able to meet basic needs with a given wage. The worker, or the worker and family? Consider this scenario: Alice and Bob work in the same office, with the same role, at the same level, with similar performance and seniority. As one would expect, their salaries are very similar. Bob is married to a doctor and lives in a paid-off single family home. They have a dog but no kids, and enjoy spending time in their vacation condo. They have no debt. Alice is a single mother of three. She lives in a rented townhouse. She has student loans outstanding as well as significant credit card debt because of chronic bad luck with the used cars she buys. Alice is thinking about declaring bankruptcy. Bob is thinking about buying a Maserati. As I said, their salaries are similar. Is it a living wage or a starvation wage? Since public assistance in the United States is typically means-tested on a household basis, there should be nothing immoral about an employer hiring Bob at any salary while he is living comfortably. But if his circumstances change, say following a divorce, he may start qualifying for public assistance. Nothing has changed in his relationship with his employer; is the employer now acting unethically?I did not suggest the $25k/yr. interviewees not be hired, I merely pointed out that, depending on how they answered the questions, they may end up being problems.
No matter which way you look at it, you're going to have problems if you don't pay your employees a living wage.
That allows a family to meet its basic needs, and provides it with some ability to deal with emergencies, without resorting to welfare or other public assistance.
money paid to workers that is not enough to pay for the things (such as food and shelter) that are needed to live
A living wage is the minimum amount of money needed to meet basic needs, assuming someone does not have access to other means of support. Each adult is assumed to be paying for the needs of one child. No one is presumed to have a paid-off home or vacation condo, and no one is assumed to be paying off usurious debts. This amount of money is determined by the cost of living in a particular area. Last I heard, the estimated cost of living in the United States, in general, is about $37,000 a year. It will be more in urban or suburban areas, and less in rural areas. It will also vary by region. The east and west coats will cost more, the central parts of the country will cost less. Employers who pay less than the cost of living for full-time work in their area are pushing their labor costs off onto the public, who will be required to make up the difference through taxes for public-assistance programs. The question being addressed by the living wage/starvation wage division is not, what is sufficient for all circumstances, but, what is minimally necessary in common circumstances. Some people will have problems we'll need to help them with, like Sally. Others will have advantages which can help others out, like Bob. In general, I've found it pointless to speak about business practices in terms of ethics. Unfortunately, most business administrators and economists believe ethics to be unrelated to their practice. However, they will pay attention to utilitarian arguments. So, if you ask me a business question, I'll respond with a utilitarian argument. You can only speak about ethics to someone who is acquainted with the liberal arts.
I am not a business administrator or economist. I have a liberal arts degree. Utilitarian arguments are interesting, but I would like to explore the ethics of low-wage employment. I see I left out a feature of Alice and Bob's situation you need to know before answering my question. Let's say that the particular area they live in is average, so the cost of living is about $37,000 a year. Is their salary a living wage or a starvation wage?
Still probably a starvation wage, even though it might be easier to live on $37k in rural Alabama than in NYC. I base this mainly on the fact that wages are lowest in the Deep South, and (surprise, surprise) they also have the highest proportion of people on Medicaid and welfare. We can argue about the virtues and vices of free market economic all day, but the fact of the matter is that there is empirical evidence, the absolute, scientific gold standard of what actually happens in the world that shows that low wages are bad for everyone.