I guess this isn’t news to anyone, but I just thought of it
I guess this isn’t news to anyone, but I just thought of it
Raising a child costs between $13k[2] and $35k[1] per year in the USA – depending on where you live and who you ask.
With a minimum wage job ($7.25/hr) you need to work about 5 to 13 hours per day to make that much – before taxes.
[1] https://smartasset.com/financial-advisor/cost-raise-child-2023
[2] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/090415/cost-raising-child-america.asp
You're viewing a single thread.
So you say … poor people should get an abortion?
"Should" is not the operative word.
"Have the choice to" get an abortion is the operative phrase.
Yes, that’s obvious. People should always have a choice. The choice should just not be based on their income alone.
The choice is not yours so you can't say what it should or shouldn't be based on.
That’s not what I meant. Income should just be irrelevant when making the choice.
Income can't be irrelevant, you do need to provide for that child. Only if poor people didn't have a problem to do so would it be irrelevant.
If a woman abort because she really doesn't want the financial trouble, it's not wrong. Furthermore, having the right to choose means she could even have bad reasons without it being wrong.
Now if you ask me, the meme isn't really about the choice itself. Poor people often choose to have a kid regardless, most women are wise enough to know it's worth it. I think the real problem is how harder it is for them to take that choice.
Yes, free health-care. Positive freedom in general is needed if you like choice.
OP didn't say that at all... They only pointed out how expensive raising a child is and that people will make the decision that is in their best interests.
You don’t need to explicitly write something down to say something.
What we SHOULDN'T do is take away their right to one if they so choose.
Or how about poor people should be given a living wage?
But what if they are not valuable enough to earn a living wage?
I beg your pardon?
Every job needs a living wage. Anything else is wage slavery. Seriously, what are you, a 1910 coal mine overseer?
A living wage for all benefits both people and the economy; that’s been proven over and over again. All people are worthy of being able to support themselves and a family, for heaven’s sake.
Let me rephrase; what if that person does not bring in enough value to an employer to be worth the amount that you think they should be paid?
And again, that’s just wage slavery done up in a different bow.
Payment for a job is you not wanting to do it or being unable to do it, so you hire someone to do it. If they do the job, they can’t do something else, so you pay them enough to make it worth their time. You support them so they can help you. If you can’t pay them enough to support them, then do the damn job yourself.
Seriously, why are you so against people getting a living wage? It used to be even grocery checkstand workers could afford a decent place. Back then our economy was better too.
We’ve done it before, and it worked. Other countries today do it and it works - see the wages for McDonald’s workers in Denmark as an example.
The only thing taking away living wages does is force people into wage slavery to line the pockets of the rich to a ridiculous degree. It’s not sustainable and it benefits no-one but a few people who don’t need that money anyways.
First problem is that "living wage" is a meaningless term because it will very by multiples depending on where you live and your family size/structure. The next problem is that people dont just do a job that needs to be done, they can literally be worth less than you pay them. If they keep making mistakes, or you cant trust that they will correctly do the job or whatever. It can just not be worth the money or extra labor to employ them.
What you should do your in your scenario is fire them, not exploit them.
Right, which is, as the other person said, why you fire them if they don’t do a good job. You don’t keep a mistake-maker and pay them less, you hire someone who can do the job and pay them well.
And how is it ‘meaningless’? You just defined it: a wage allowing someone to live in the place they’re located. So yes, it changes from place to place. That’s not ‘meaningless’, it’s ‘regional’. And you should still pay someone a living wage.
I don’t understand why you’re so opposed to it. Why do you want people suffering and in poverty for providing services? If you work, you should be able to eat and live, full stop. Even if it’s only in the cheaper parts of your town.
Exactly, so what do you do with people that are not valuable enough to pay a "living wage"?
For the love of…
I guess I need to use simple words and shorter sentences with you.
If you hire a person, you pay them a living wage.
If they’re not doing their job right, train them better.
If they still don’t work out, fire them.
There. Is. No. Reason. Not. To. Pay. Workers. A. Living. Wage.
None.
And you still haven’t answered my question. Why are you so enamored of exploiting workers?
Nice strawman, try again