Why do you think that every job has to be suitable for single parent breadwinners? Couldn't our society function better if there were different kinds of jobs available, including for low skilled teenagers?
And this sounds like some form of UBI.
If everyone had some income floor as a starting point, the government could be far less involved in micromanaging employment relationships, and low income people would be in a better position to turn down jobs offering very low wages.
that's not really true. I remember it being surprisingly difficult to get my first minimum wage job as a teenager. the managers at grocery stores and even gas stations would ask if I had any prior work experience and never call me back. most employers would prefer an older and more experienced person if they could get them for the same price. I ended up getting a job at a restaurant, but that was only because the owner was a creepy manchild who wanted paid teenage friends to relive his highschool glory days with.
What kinds of industries have no pay internships?
Although those jobs tend to be low-paying and insecure as well.
But, in any case, internships that don't pay or pay minimally tend to indicate a field that you probably won't earn a lot in anyway.
There are probably exceptions with some summer jobs where the pay may not be a lot but it looks good on a resume in a field that does pay good salaries.
Also if you're poor there much bigger barriers to being a doctor than an volunteering. Like the decade of unpaid schooling. Or remove the need for an undergrad degree for doctor's like the rest of the world.
In fact, in most cases, low-skilled teenagers, even if they are a majority of workers in a role, still make up a minority of hours worked. Similarly, people putting in 0-20 hours make up 2/3rds of the drivers but something like 25% of the actual hours worked. So they're not really what we should be looking at when looking at what Uber/Lyft's business actually looks like.
Some work produces less than minimum wage value. Minimum wage was initially created to price minorities out of the market. Cutting off earning opportunities that people would do (and they're currently doing it) but that fall below that arbitrary earning floor only restricts total earning opportunities. That so many people seem to be willing to drive for ride share companies tells us it's currently better than any other alternatives and that they're willing to accept their current payments.
And if there is an actual reason, why take that option away from someone who is choosing it on purpose?
Why are you assuming there are always other jobs available? In the case when there is, I can see your point. But when there are not it's no longer a choice. Sometimes it's better to just things off of the table to make the whole system better. And yeah it does suck for people in unique circumstances. It's really a balancing act that requires nuance and compromise.
If there aren't other jobs available, you haven't made the whole system better.
I'm not convinced that a higher level of "no job at all" is a better overall fit for society than "some people drive Uber" given that Uber isn't a particularly exploitive thing in terms of destroying the body or inflexible hours or other problems of the past.
It seems like we're trading off a useful form of semi-employment for a greater need for direct redistribution, and I'd rather my redistribution be partially-Uber-shaped and provide at least some features.
A world where Uber exists needs a less-high absolute redistributed benefits floor, and results in some more work getting done to people's benefit.
The problem is, we just are really bad at providing that base benefits floor, and we're trying to make Uber magically fix that for us.
If you're not being paid enough to live on 40 hours a week, you're underpaid.
This is perhaps a core disagreement, which is wroth digging into. I'm willing to engage with this idea but the disagreement area is critical here.
First, what it means to "live on 40 hours a week" is highly variable from person to person, is it not? If you agree, shouldn't we then avoid making broad judgments based on that concept? I suggest that we leave such judgments to the employee and leave it on him to make decisions on those details.
Second, supposing that an individual decides he doesn't earn enough: isn't is better to rely on him to investigate what he can do to address the situation? There are many things that can be done to address the situation from working more hours, to changing jobs, to taking on training for a new job for example. Isn't this preferable?
All forms of safety nets require the consideration of a reasonable floor. I mean if someone feels public transport is beneath them, well tough, but have a warm safe place to sleep with a locked door and fridge seems reasonable. Of course, in time the floor will rise.
> isn't is better to rely on him to investigate what he can do to address the situation? There are many things that can be done to address the situation from working more hours,
People shouldn't have to spend all their time working, even if they have no worthwhile skills. Just because someone has no economic value doesn't mean they don't have human value. They should still have a life.
> to changing jobs, to taking on training for a new job for example.
Those require money and time, not easily obtained. Also, the people who need it most are those with the least amount of access to it.
> Isn't this preferable?
This is personal question, but I say no. Even if you don't agree, then maybe you'll agree with this "The best reason to feed the barbarians at the gate is to keep them out of your gate". Law & order is a democracy, and when enough people decide that the current order doesn't benefit them, it ends.
Yeah, that seems reasonable to me but we also know that there's a great deal of variation on all of the details there (warm, safe, locked door, refrigerator). I see it as necessary to allow/require individuals to make the decisions on all those details. I see it as a necessary condition for people to be free.
> People shouldn't have to spend all their time working, even if they have no worthwhile skills. Just because someone has no economic value doesn't mean they don't have human value. They should still have a life.
I'm sympathetic to this outlook. It's the details of it where I get tripped up with people. One area in particular is the state where someone has no worthwhile skills. I think that while a human being has no less dignity when he has no worthwhile skills, that is an unsustainable state that needs work. Similarly, I question the implicit assumption that there is a connection between someone's economic value and intrinsic worth as a human being. Perhaps what we disagree on what is it looks like for a society to place minimum acceptable value on such life.
> Those require money and time, not easily obtained. Also, the people who need it most are those with the least amount of access to it.
I don't dispute that money and time are required, and that it may not be easy. However I still maintain the responsibility lies in those individuals/workers.
> This is personal question, but I say no. Even if you don't agree, then maybe you'll agree with this "The best reason to feed the barbarians at the gate is to keep them out of your gate". Law & order is a democracy, and when enough people decide that the current order doesn't benefit them, it ends.
There is a version of the statement I could agree with, but in your specific statement of barbarians at the gate, it's also a possibility to not feed them. It really depends and since it's a hypothetical I don't want to engage with it too much. But I do agree that you can't expect to build up a huge class of miserable people and expect stability forever. The question to me is, how can we best serve them? I adamantly prefer to teach and raise them up, difficult as that may be, then to place demands/restrictions on employers.