Re:Fewer than 40% of New Yorkers earn a living wage
by runako on Tuesday January 10, 2023 @12:14PM
(#34328098)
This is a really solid point with which I agree!
I think the only caveat is there is much debate about where to set the minimum wage, and it's not crystal clear what is the appropriate number. So for that debate I do think it is reasonable to use as a proxy "is the employee paid enough to not qualify for means-tested social assistance programs," because there is obviously a relationship in practice between the minimum wage and the amount ultimately spent on social assistance. This is only really true because the means-tested programs phase out as income increases, which would not be true of single-payer healthcare (so the argument doesn't make sense in that case).
Re:Fewer than 40% of New Yorkers earn a living wage
by legitster on Tuesday January 10, 2023 @12:48PM
(#34328604)
I don't have a strong opinion on minimum wage, but it's pretty clear you can have equally good outcomes with multiple different approaches. There are some very progressive countries with no effective minimum wage (Finland being a notable example).
So to provide an analysis that is mathematically only going to favor one approach seems a bit jaded to me.
I really, really, really hate this framing. The whole point of these programs was to help people regardless of their employment status. The alternative is saying that only people without jobs should ever use a social service.
No one in their right mind would say that a single-payer health plan would "subsidize corporations" by making employees cheaper. So it seems wrong to accuse SNAP or Title IX of doing the same.