• ShittyRedditWasBetter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Because it costs money to support these individuals whether it’s at the job or sitting at home. So as one other commenter put it, you can have them contributing, feeling good about themselves, and bringing in a few bucks; or you can make it so that nobody wants to hire them and they sit at home draining caretaker resources. If you want to subsidize that cost go ahead and convince everyone to do so.

    • Ascyron@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I see you have a couple of straw-men responding to you, so I’ll try answer with a real world actual answer from my own lived experience.

      I used to know a guy, who I’ll call Dave. Dave had some major developmental disabilities, like major major ones. At the time I first met him, my country had a law similar to this one being debated here, and Dave was employed for about half of minimum wage to push a broom around a carpentry workshop. It was the first and only time in his life that he’d ever earned a wage, and there was an unsaid understanding among the crew that Dave was doing would otherwise be a couple minutes work for them. Everyone loved him because he was so happy, and always wanting to help.

      Dave was so proud of being part of the team, and he kept the place incredibly tidy, tidier than I’ve ever seen any other tradie’s workshop. (Also - it’s important context that over here we have good social safety nets, so Dave didn’t need the money to survive, he had government benefits and a full time carer).

      Then the law was revoked - suddenly the guy owning the business had to choose between paying Dave or getting a full time qualified apprentice. So he did what he had to do.

      There isn’t a happy ending to this story. Health and safety meant that you couldn’t have an unpaid non-worker running around a workshop, and Dave was never able to come back - even though he’d have been happy to stay unpaid just to be part of the team. And a couple years later, my work happened to take me to a small government -owned townhouse, which turned out to be Dave’s. His carer recognised me, but I didn’t recognise Dave. He was a sad empty shell of the person I once knew; he’d lost his purpose, his armchair literally had the cartoon-style outline of his body because he was there so often, and I was told he hadn’t left the house for more than six months, even for a walk around the block.

      It’s possible to both protect disadvantaged workers from exploitation, while also giving inducements to businesses so that it’s worth hiring people who otherwise wouldn’t be hireable. We had that here! And when we lost it, Dave lost his purpose and the only part of his life that had ever given him meaning.

      • iByteABit [he/him]@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is a good response, it really sucks for Dave, and the boss to a degree.

        People with disabilities should be given activities and support groups as well, money is helpful but unfortunately not enough.

        • Ascyron@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          After I wrote the above rant, I was reflecting on it and I think the main opposition to this idea comes from the inbuilt assumption that job = money + survival. People say that the USA should have $15 minimum wage because that’s what they need to survive.

          But in a country where survival and a base amount of money were inbuilt, Dave was free to do something that he enjoyed and which gave him purpose.

          I think I just talked myself into supporting universal basic income, presumably paid for by taxing the world’s trillion dollar corporations?

          • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s similar in the US. I worked with some people similar to Dave. They didn’t work out of necessity. Disability covered their basic needs.

            • Ascyron@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m glad to hear it! You never hear about the instances where systems work and support those in need…

          • iByteABit [he/him]@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah l hope UBI can be adopted succesfully somewhere in the near future, but I fear that no person in power will let that happen because it’s not to their benefit to do so.

            I would love it if we can create a society where survival and a simple living are given for everyone regardless of job status, without having to resort to a violent revolution, but historically that doesn’t seem likely.

          • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            UBI would be an ideal solution to a lot of problems. People argue everyone would choose to stay home and do nothing with UBI but really it would make it conscionable to open up more options for how and why people work.

    • Dodecahedron December@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because people have egos.

      “I make $15 an hour at my job, this (slur) can’t even (slur) and gets paid nearly as much as I make?!”

      Yeah buddy, and you also deserve to make more.