Hacker News Reader

I want to agree with you, but: a company whose employees' lives must be subsidized by the taxpayer (because they aren't earning enough to live on from full-time wages) is a net economic negative to society. If you have a lot of such companies or such jobs then you will have a societal insolvency, won't you? And what purpose do such companies serve, privatizing gains while socializing burdens?

View on HN

> I want to agree with you, but: a company whose employees' lives must be subsidized by the taxpayer (because they aren't earning enough to live on from full-time wages) is a net economic negative to society.

Err...is it? Some income is better than no income. The more the company pays, the less the worker's life has to be subsidized. Any pay at all reduces the necessary subsidy, not including say, unpaid transportation costs. The pay must at least match the cost of being at work, but no employee would accept payment less than the cost of getting to work.

> If you have a lot of such companies or such jobs then you will have a societal insolvency, won't you?

See: Canada's free health system, or UK's NHS, or literally any other single payer system.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com