5 ms·
> I think this would be a good way to frame an argument for a minimum wage in such a way it would appeal to a conservative. "Businesses: you must pay employees
by humanrebar 10y ago
> I think this would be a good way to frame an argument for a minimum wage in such a way it would appeal to a conservative. "Businesses: you must pay employees enough so they aren't eligible for (most forms of) public assistance."
Is it better to not pay them at all?
If the problem is that people can't afford their bills, the solution is to help them afford their bills (minimum income, negative income tax, cash welfare, etc.), not to distort labor markets.
We need to make sure that there is modest marginal cost to employment or else people will have limited ability to retrain or otherwise break into new labor markets.
- VLM 10y agoYes its better not to pay them at all because it sends a strong economic signal of "go do something else you're not wanted here". Far better they get a new career and become net sources of tax money rather than net sinks. At the macro level you have a totally different problem if there's 320 million people and only 90 million jobs, well... There is no logical reason retraining or breaking into a market naturally requires receipt of food stamps. If there were a healthy demand, pay would be healthy.
- humanrebar 10y agoThere is healthy demand for lower risk employees. It's a big ask for an employer to sink $50k into an unknown employee. If we want people to make bets on the inexperienced and untrained, we need to lower the stakes. $40k/year is a big bet. Telling people to just find another industry is well and good, but what industry will pay a 55 year old underemployed person full salary and benefits just in case they're a tragically misunderstood diamond in the rough. And this is a real problem. The employment rate is in the basement. There are structural issues that need addressed.