Unskilled does not mean un needed.

[u/Justthisdudeyaknow]

[u/YUNoJump]

This is one of those situations where your opponent's logic is hard to understand because they likely aren't even following a consistent logical framework, it's just gut feelings and prejudice. They don't have a full concept of how their "working class can't afford to live" system would work, they just start at "unskilled labour shouldn't pay much" and think up whatever justifies their position on a whim.

It's very common to see silly, surface-level positions like "McDonalds is a job for teenagers, so it doesn't need to pay a living wage", or "I can make coffee at home, so Starbucks employees are worthless". These positions can be easily dismantled in a dozen different ways, but they're still common, because people aren't thinking logically, they're just self-justifying whatever existing opinion they had of "unskilled" workers.

[u/b3nsn0w → u/YUNoJump]

one of the weirder thing i've seen, especially among americans (as a european), is that a lot of them don't want to just have a nice life. they want a nicer life than their neighbor. they don't want to feel good, they want to feel superior, and if anyone can have something, that something is worthless to them. it's definitely not all americans, there are a lot of sane people and a lot of stupid people in every society, but it's an idea that for some reason seems particularly widespread in the us.

over here, we rarely have people complain why "their" taxes are helping people other than them. people don't consider taxation theft (which, if you think about it, is fucking weird, we had a nobility and kings ruling most of us for a century or so when the yanks already had their democracy, if anyone should have that residual cultural effect it's us), we consider it a contribution to make society nice. because we want nice things for ourselves, and if our neighbor gets something nice out of it too, that just makes it better. life is not a competition -- and it seems like the yanks consider it as such, and that's why they're raging at social programs that would use "their hard-earned money" to prop someone else up and make it difficult to gain that much of an advantage compared to them.

when you talk to people who want to have a working class who can't afford to live, and actually listen to what they're saying and just explore the topic instead of telling them why they're wrong, that's usually where the rabbit hole leads. they want to make sure others are not earning too much because if they are, that diminishes their salary in their eyes. if a starbucks barista could earn $100k then earning $100k wouldn't be special, and if whatever they earn is not special, if it doesn't put them above the barista, then it's worthless.

america is a society of haves and have nots and it seems many yanks are afraid that if things got better for the have nots, it would mean they would also become have nots. it seems they have a hard time imagining a society where everyone can have a nice time. why that is is probably way too deep of a topic, but if you wanna convince them that yes, working class people do in fact deserve to live comfortably, you probably also need to convince them that it's not the end of the world if it actually happens, and that their lifestyle is not predicated on everyone else having a bad time. (like for some people, sure, that's a thing, but if you don't have a seven figure salary or above, you could still live like you currently do without everyone getting exploited around you.)

[u/ElectronRotoscope → u/b3nsn0w]

Lyndon Johnson maintained that part of why it was so hard to fight entrenched racism in America was that poor white people didn't mind as much being looked down on by the rich, as long as they could think of other people as non-white and therefore have someone they could look down on

america is a society of haves and have nots

On that subject, another weird quirk of the American mindset seems to be a resistance to ever accept that one is a has-not. While this is argued to be good for social mobility and resistance to entrenched generational problems, it does create issues for forming solidarity and movements to represent the needs of the lower classes.

From a Marco Rubio speech, saying the quiet part loud: "But to do that, it all starts with embracing the fundamental principle of America’s prosperity.  And that is that we have never been a nation of haves and have-nots. We are a nation of haves and soon-to-haves, of people who have made it and people who will make it. And that’s who we need to remain."

Or Steinbeck about the 1930s: "I guess the trouble was that we didn't have any self-admitted proletarians. Everyone was a temporarily embarrassed capitalist." often quoted as "socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires"