5 ms·

> So what is being outlawed by minimum wage are "jobs" that cannot feed people, which, I am sure you will agree, are simply not worth existing. I certainly don

> So what is being outlawed by minimum wage are "jobs" that cannot feed people, which, I am sure you will agree, are simply not worth existing. I certainly don't agree with that sentiment. There are a lot of people that are working that don't need to support themselves. Between teenagers, college students (who may only need to pay for books, etc), mentally/physically impaired (that are supported by the state but work because it's good to be productive)... there's a place in society for jobs that pay below what you're saying.

js8 11y ago
Then we will agree that we disagree. Let's ignore, for the moment, the big issue here, which is that by far, these jobs are not held only by people who you describe (college students and impaired). I don't think creating an artificial job that cannot actually feed you can make anybody feel better of themselves. In any case, it shouldn't be called "a job", which was my point. In particular, I think college students should study and not be distracted by having side jobs, and disabled people should either enjoy their pension (assuming they live in a civilized country that has that) or have a regular job (in fact, labor laws in my country prescribe positive discrimination for disabled people, even though it is probably economically inefficient).
- mikaeluman 11y ago
  Because you don't care about those people who would really benefit from an easy job for 1-2 years which gives them a foot in. Horrible values on display.
  - js8 11y ago
    /s/horrible/different/ I do care for those people, but I subscribe to a different cultural model. To provide job training so that economy could function should be responsibility of the employer, or the government, and it should be considered a full time job. Regardless whether the "foot in the door" job is supposed to be a job training or not, then I think the employer is perfectly capable of paying minimum wage for people doing it.
    - Tideflat 11y ago
      Job training by employers doesn't work great, because the worker can get training at an employer that gives training and then switch to one who pays more because that employer doesn't have to do training. Though possibly that could be fixed with proper regulation.
    - imtringued 11y ago
      I would like to see a real flexible job market. (hire and fire misses the point). Companies want employees they don't have to train. I can't blame them for that but right now you have to decide your career path very early on and it's very difficult to switch. At the current pace of the economy it's not reasonable to expect from someone to work at the same job or industry their entire life.
      - js8 11y ago
        > At the current pace of the economy it's not reasonable to expect from someone to work at the same job or industry their entire life. I disagree, I think it's a wrong path, because it devalues really deep expertise. It seems to me that people do not want to be experts anymore, precisely for this reason. Dabbling in many different things is seen as a path to success. But I think this culture is missing out on something. By the way, good social security or basic income can be seen as insurance to switch jobs without too much risk, too.
michaelmrose 11y ago
The labor market exists to turn work into food and shelter not provide money for bored children. Factually the overwhelming majority of low wage work is done by people who do in fact need to support themselves and their families. Even so it's entirely possible for special exemptions to be made for kids and the other cases are hardly worth mentioning.
cowsandmilk 11y ago
> college students (who may only need to pay for books, etc) Now you're beginning to sound like the generation that talks about paying for college with their summer job, which has rapidly become close to impossible over the last few decades. Sure, if you have scholarships and such. Standard in-state sticker price is now $20,000/year; which would require 69 weeks of work at 40 hours per week before you even account for taxes.
- russell_h 11y ago
  I agree with your sentiment, but the $20,000/year "sticker price" number is way off. The first result Google turns up suggests: In 2015-16, average published tuition and fee prices for in-state students at public four-year institutions range from $4,890 in Wyoming and $6,350 in Montana to $14,990 in Vermont and $15,160 in New Hampshire. http://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/2015-16-state-tuition-and-fees-public-four-year-institutions-state-and-five-year-percentage http://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-table...
- RHSeeger 11y ago
  > Now you're beginning to sound like the generation that talks about paying for college with their summer job, which has rapidly become close to impossible over the last few decades. Sure, if you have scholarships and such. Not in the least. In fact, the wife and I are still paying off the $90,000 in loans she racked up during college, 20 years ago. However, a part time job a few days a week, to pay for things the loans didn't, was beneficial. Going out with friends, a few amenities, etc.

js8 11y ago

Then we will agree that we disagree. Let's ignore, for the moment, the big issue here, which is that by far, these jobs are not held only by people who you describe (college students and impaired). I don't think creating an artificial job that cannot actually feed you can make anybody feel better of themselves. In any case, it shouldn't be called "a job", which was my point. In particular, I think college students should study and not be distracted by having side jobs, and disabled people should either enjoy their pension (assuming they live in a civilized country that has that) or have a regular job (in fact, labor laws in my country prescribe positive discrimination for disabled people, even though it is probably economically inefficient).

mikaeluman 11y ago
Because you don't care about those people who would really benefit from an easy job for 1-2 years which gives them a foot in. Horrible values on display.
- js8 11y ago
  /s/horrible/different/ I do care for those people, but I subscribe to a different cultural model. To provide job training so that economy could function should be responsibility of the employer, or the government, and it should be considered a full time job. Regardless whether the "foot in the door" job is supposed to be a job training or not, then I think the employer is perfectly capable of paying minimum wage for people doing it.
  - Tideflat 11y ago
    Job training by employers doesn't work great, because the worker can get training at an employer that gives training and then switch to one who pays more because that employer doesn't have to do training. Though possibly that could be fixed with proper regulation.
  - imtringued 11y ago
    I would like to see a real flexible job market. (hire and fire misses the point). Companies want employees they don't have to train. I can't blame them for that but right now you have to decide your career path very early on and it's very difficult to switch. At the current pace of the economy it's not reasonable to expect from someone to work at the same job or industry their entire life.
    - js8 11y ago
      > At the current pace of the economy it's not reasonable to expect from someone to work at the same job or industry their entire life. I disagree, I think it's a wrong path, because it devalues really deep expertise. It seems to me that people do not want to be experts anymore, precisely for this reason. Dabbling in many different things is seen as a path to success. But I think this culture is missing out on something. By the way, good social security or basic income can be seen as insurance to switch jobs without too much risk, too.

michaelmrose 11y ago

The labor market exists to turn work into food and shelter not provide money for bored children. Factually the overwhelming majority of low wage work is done by people who do in fact need to support themselves and their families. Even so it's entirely possible for special exemptions to be made for kids and the other cases are hardly worth mentioning.

cowsandmilk 11y ago

> college students (who may only need to pay for books, etc) Now you're beginning to sound like the generation that talks about paying for college with their summer job, which has rapidly become close to impossible over the last few decades. Sure, if you have scholarships and such. Standard in-state sticker price is now $20,000/year; which would require 69 weeks of work at 40 hours per week before you even account for taxes.

russell_h 11y ago
I agree with your sentiment, but the $20,000/year "sticker price" number is way off. The first result Google turns up suggests: In 2015-16, average published tuition and fee prices for in-state students at public four-year institutions range from $4,890 in Wyoming and $6,350 in Montana to $14,990 in Vermont and $15,160 in New Hampshire. http://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/2015-16-state-tuition-and-fees-public-four-year-institutions-state-and-five-year-percentage http://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-table...
RHSeeger 11y ago
> Now you're beginning to sound like the generation that talks about paying for college with their summer job, which has rapidly become close to impossible over the last few decades. Sure, if you have scholarships and such. Not in the least. In fact, the wife and I are still paying off the $90,000 in loans she racked up during college, 20 years ago. However, a part time job a few days a week, to pay for things the loans didn't, was beneficial. Going out with friends, a few amenities, etc.