Respond to two students.

Initial Question: There is much discussion about the minimum wage and 'livable' wage. Discuss your view of this topic in the context of ethics and justice and fairness. Be sure to support your position with reference to principles, concepts, and theory.

Please respond to two students. Respond to the two students separately

Student 1:

For starters, I think fast-food workers should be getting higher wages. I thought it was ridiculous that In-N-Out pays a starting rate of $11 plus benefits while McDonalds workers make an average of $8.25 an hour before taxes and with hardly any benefits. I think since the food fast industry makes up a large share of Americas low-wage workers need to be making more money. Ethically speaking making $8.25 an hour isnt giving your workers a healthy lifestyle and also for Mcdonalds to make the assumption that their workers should be working two jobs. These corporations need to think about their employees and provide them with a living wage. I read that New York recently mandated a $15 minimum for fast-food workers in New York City by 2018 and for the rest of the state by 2021. Similar actions are under consideration in other states (Pollin). I think we have seen that leaving the decisions to these big corporations isnt working and they are not thinking with ethics. Hopefully states around the world and understand the principle of a living wage. In the article, I read they discussed how businesses can adapt without cutbacks. They talk raises the price of fast food by three percent per year. Using available research, we estimate that such price increases would simultaneously reduce consumer demand by about 1.5 percent overall. But fast-food stores would still gain additional revenues to help offset higher wage costs (Pollin).

Student 2:

My belief is that as a right, an employee willingly agreeing to a full time position, within a well established industry, should be able to adequately live off their paycheck. John Rawls's principle of distributive justice is " each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties compatible with similar liberties for all social and economic inequalities are arrange so that they are both a.) to the greatest of the least-advantaged person, and b.) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity". I've read part "a" numerous times. It makes me wonder if Rawls is talking about making sure everyone receives an equal outcome no matter what. Maybe he is saying that the least-advantaged person just needs to have the opportunities of basic liberties, such as livable pay for example.

I was just considering the thought that livable pay can be skewed. Each person lives different. I live in a house with my girlfriend, where there could be family of three or four people living in an apartment. Apartments cost more and taking care of the lives of four people cost more. So would the livable pay be the number needed for the family of four in the apartment or for my situation? I would either be getting a decent raise or that family would receive a pay cut, if we are both living off of minimum wage. It's interesting to look at the two different sides of the situation, even though livable pay would most likely be decided on averages.

To summarize, I do believe in fair pay. I don't believe it to be morally right for someone to work 40 hours a week and still not be able to get by.