3 ms·
Just as a fun thought experiment, let's say we price all the service workers at current income levels out of the market so they all move away. At some point, pe
by alexmat 10y ago
Just as a fun thought experiment, let's say we price all the service workers at current income levels out of the market so they all move away. At some point, people will be willing to pay more for service work due to a strong demand for limited services.
It almost seems pernicious to have low income housing since it allows employers to get away with lower wages to cover an artificially low cost of housing, at the same time, service workers retain a poor quality of life because outside housing everything else is expensive.
- tuna-piano 10y agoYour first point is definitely correct, one example (a mix of factors) would be the $17+ wages for Walmart and fast food workers in North Dakota energy boom towns(1). Your second point is interesting, but I suspect only partially correct. I imagine subsidizing service workers to live in low income housing does allow businesses to pay service workers less in those areas. However, if those low income housing units were not the service workers best option - they wouldn't live there. So I would imagine overall that it does help the service workers, not hurt them. http://dailysignal.com/2014/06/10/drilling-innovation-forcing-walmart-north-dakota-pay-17-40-hour/ http://dailysignal.com/2014/06/10/drilling-innovation-forcin...
- alexmat 10y agoThanks for the link, that's exactly what I had in mind!