I had a thought I'd like to share.
A day's provisions for a day's labor seems fair to many people, but to some, it seems unreasonable. I'm not sure why, but here's something to consider.
Every person needs a day's provisions. The way to earn those provisions is to work for them. This can mean growing your own food, building your own shelter, or doing labor for others, among other things.
In our society, land is pretty much owned. The days of finding an unowned bit of land and starting a farm are long gone. So basically we're forced to work for others for a day's provisions.
When employers do not provide a day's provisions for a day's work, the employee must find another way to obtain those provisions. One possibility is to do additional work, but in a market where one job is hard enough to get, two is nearly impossible. Another possibility is finding another job, but in a given area, if one employer is paying a sub-living wage for general labor, most are likely to. Wages have to stay competitive, after all.
A third option is retraining, but this takes money. If a person cannot get a day's provisions, how are they going to get retraining?
The fourth option, and by far the most simple, is to obtain a day's provisions through force, scam, or crime. And once a person starts on the path of crime, they quickly realize they can earn far more than a day's provisions for less than a day's work.
If employers offer a day's provisions for a day's labor, they reduce the impetus to commit criminal acts.
We can look at periods in history when workers have been exploited, and gain some insight as to the relationship between inadequate wages and the prevalence - and acceptance - of crime. In days gone by, when the people generally lived in abject property and the fruits of their labors went to selfish nobles, criminals fluorished and banditry was commonplace; it was also accepted by the common folks, who were usually not the targets of such banditry. In fact, at many points in history, criminals were considered 'folk-heroes' or even idols, for standing up to the tyranny and greed of the elite. It is also no wonder that in many old cultures, 'freedom' was commonly related to 'banditry' - free folk lived off the produce of others (or, more correctly, of the gathered wealth held by the elite). Is it any wonder that the Romanian wanderers were seen as thieves, when they were simply free wanderers, supporting themselves as best they could in a world where you were expected to give a lifetime of labor for a bare, scant survival?
Workers should expect a day's provisions for a day's labor. Business owners, on the other hand, are expected to already have their provisions, or the means to acquire them, before entering into an enterprise. Why is it, after all, that advisors tell people looking to start a business that they should also plan in their budgets sufficient funds to cover their own needs for up to two to three years on top of what they're putting into business?
Very few - if, indeed, any - business owners are using food stamps (or starving), living in shelters, and walking to work in order to start up their business. They already have days, weeks, months -- even years - of provisions (or the means to acquire such) at their disposal.
One of the costs of business - along with tools, rent, supplies, etc. - is employees. And the base cost of an employee is a day's provisions for a day's work.
