False worlds. No body takes a job that pays below the subsistence level. Otherwise they'd scavange or forage and actually do subsistence living. People do take jobs when they have to that forces them to cut back their budgets - ie those things that are not absolutely necessary.
Bolding mine.
First, the usual request: proof?
Second, a personal comment: you apparently live in a fictional world. In reality, MANY people take jobs that are below the subsistence level. They then find other ways, ways that are not included when determining subsistence level, to bring themselves into a survival situation; or, they flounder, fail, starve, or wind up more or less permanently on welfare.
One of the ideals in almost any version of our government system is the reduction or elimination of welfare. As a result, when calculating subsistence levels, welfare is not taken into account. Neither is living with your parents, growing your own food (which actually can, at times, become more expensive - especially in places where even a small garden plot is an expensive piece of land), eating at a suboptimal nutrition level, ignoring health concerns, ignoring hygeine concerns, theft or other crime, dangerously attempting to 'get by' without heat or cooling, and other methods that people have to use to get by on minimum wage. Nor is taking two jobs.
Sure, we could say that a subsistence-level wage is one that combines the minimum wage with some of these activities. A day's work is only worth half a day's provisions; the worker is expected to beg, borrow, or steal the other half. But that's not how subsistence level is defined.
Whether you like to believe it or not, MANY people take jobs which do not pay a subsistence-level wage. Food stamps wouldn't be so common if they did not.
In point of fact, military pay for lower-ranking soldiers is below subsistence level. The evidence of this is the fact that married soldiers up to at least E-5/Sergeant still qualify for food stamps and other public assistance measures. A single soldier is compensated for his/her below-subsistence level wages by being provided housing, which is often inadequate; food, which is usually rather decent; full medical coverage; and a number of long-term benefits not offered to civilians.
It would be more accurate to claim that no one takes a job that fails to pay subsistence-level wages unless they have some other means of reaching subsistence level. However, to assume that all workers are going to have access to this is to either a) insist on an integrated and permanent welfare state, or b) completely delusional.
Am I to take it that, in your opinion, a robust welfare state that brings everyone up to subsistence level is a reasonable trade-off for paying inadequate wages, considering that it is still largely the employer who, through taxes, is providing this welfare anyway? Or is it desirable to eliminate the tax-financed welfare state?
You can eliminate all unnecessary spending and still not survive long enough on a minimum-wage job to reach the point where you can surpass minimum wage and reach subsistance.
Not everyone has families or friends that can assist them. Sometimes, families and friends are struggling just as hard or harder to survive. Sometimes, they simply don't exist at all. Not everyone can grow their own food supplies. Not everyone can walk to work.
No one on this thread is suggesting employers need to pay enough for an unskilled worker to own an iPhone, 40" TV, and two cars. They need to pay enough that an unskilled worker can eat a nutritionally proper diet, get to work, have heat and cooling as needed, and get proper health and hygeine care and shelter. This is only logical, as failing to provide these basic necessities means having a workforce of unhealthy, unproductive laborers.
Let me ask you this: let's say you need an employee - someone unskilled. What do you believe that unskilled employee needs to have to be an effective employee for your company? Assume for a moment absolutely no public assistance, private assistance, or other factors - what do you need to provide for him in order for him to be a useful employee?
Does he need to eat?
Does he need a place to sleep where he won't be exposed to the elements or molested?
Does he need to remain healthy for the duration of his employment?
Does he need to come to work clean?
Does he need to be to work in a timely fashion?
Does he need to be dressed?
I just want to know what you think the minimum you need to provide to your employee is. And 'whatever he is willing to accept' is not an answer. The reason this is not an answer is that it's not a matter of employees setting their price. In our world - the real world - the employer sets the employees' prices, and the employee can either accept these prices or not work. Competition is low, because most companies will agree on comparably low prices for employee wages. Companies can hold out months or even years without hiring an employee knowing that sooner or later, desperation will drive an employee to accept ANY wage just to survive a few weeks longer. Employees will never have an upper hand in the market. Employees will never have the power as individuals to force employers to raise wages. This is only accomplished by groups - unions, governments, etc. - who can find means to coerce employers to treat their workers fairly. This is the lesson of history.
