= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on On Walmart, And Who Bears Responsibility For the Poor - LessWrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (510)
It's not rhetoric. If a company says they cannot pay a living wage without the subsidy, then that is what such a statement means.
It is rhetoric because "living wage" in the US is far beyond what's needed to keep people alive. People who don't get paid a "living wage" do not drop dead in the streets from malnutrition and exhaustion.
Can we drop the pointless definitional agreement and just find a study specifying what wage-level is necessary to keep people from dropping very preventably dead or being arrested for vagrancy?
I am not particularly interested in a study. At one point in my life I was poor. Very very poor. I have quite a good idea of how much money do you need to survive in a US city. Hint: it's far below what is usually called "a living wage".