6 ms·

> That should be expensive for the middle-class. So you're saying only rich people should get taxi rides? I thought Sweden supported the poor more. Also, you'

> That should be expensive for the middle-class. So you're saying only rich people should get taxi rides? I thought Sweden supported the poor more. Also, you're aware that when the minimum wage is too high, it just means there will be more unemployment, not that everyone gets a raise. Now the debate is: are people happier with a job with a low wage or are they happier at home doing nothing? Studies show that people are more depressed at home when unemployed and have more chance to improve their condition and salary by starting at lower paid jobs doing something. But many of the supporters of high minimum wage would rather people stay at home than improve themselves starting with lower paid jobs not because it helps the poor but because it helps the high minimum wage supporters sleep better at night knowing that although more people have no jobs, at least no one is being underpaid... well... except for those not being paid at all.

js8 10y ago
> So you're saying only rich people should get taxi rides? I do agree with that, best if middle class people use public transport (or worse, their own car). > I thought Sweden supported the poor more. It has nothing to do with support of the poor. In India, taxis are incredibly cheap, and there is no shortage of poor people. Poor people can drive buses and trams, too, you know. > Also, you're aware that when the minimum wage is too high, it just means there will be more unemployment No, it doesn't. It was never empirically proven that there is a connection between minimum wage and unemployment. (You are simplifying the whole economy to the labor market, but there is also demand side.)
- patrickaljord 10y ago
  That's amazing, you're basically saying better services should be for the rich only while the poor should use lower public services while saying at the same time that you support the poor. Incredible. That's what socialism always does, pretends to help the poor but in the end only the elite benefits from it. > No, it doesn't. It was never empirically proven that there is a connection between minimum wage and unemployment. When it comes to low skill jobs, yes, increasing the minimum wage does create more unemployment as the middle class is not able to pay for them anymore, only the super rich. That's a well no fact, you can look it up.
  - jamesblonde 10y ago
    That's not a fact. It's nonsense you believe to be a fact. Luxembourg, Sweden, Norway, Germany all have low unemployment rates (and higher total employment rates than the US) and have higher minimum wages. Economies adapt to higher minimum wages, they may lose jobs in the short term, then adapt and total employment can return to former levels if the correct policies are in place. Btw, when you say socialism pretends to help the poor, but helps the elite, that doesn't help your case. By all objective measures, the poor are better off in western european social democratic countries than in a free-for-all capitalist society, like the US. There are other models, like Singapore that also work well, FYI.
    - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
      > Luxembourg, Sweden, Norway, Germany all have low unemployment rates (and higher total employment rates than the US) and have higher minimum wages. France, Belgium and Ireland all have a higher minimum wage and higher unemployment rates than the US. Clearly the unemployment rate is affected by multiple factors. The issue is whether a higher minimum wage increases unemployment, not whether you can counteract it with other policies -- applying the other policies without raising the minimum wage could result in even less unemployment. > Btw, when you say socialism pretends to help the poor, but helps the elite, that doesn't help your case. There are a huge number of nominally socialist policies in the US that really exist at the behest of large corporations. Mortgage interest tax deduction -- "help people own a home", really makes home ownership more expensive and transfers tax dollars to mortgage banks. Ditto student loan interest subsidies. Affordable housing subsidies -- placate political demand for lower housing costs without actually lowering market rate housing costs for low-middle income working people, transfers tax dollars to landlords, encourages low income people to rent rather than own. Social security -- no progressive rate structure, tax cutoff for millionaires, benefits based on lifespan and historical income which both disadvantage lower income people. Tax deductions for employer-provided health insurance -- implicit subsidy to large insurance companies. Affordable Care Act -- huge tax dollar subsidy to large insurance companies, effectively prohibits people from saving money with high deductible insurance plans that are less profitable to same insurance companies, and discourage overconsumption and overpayment to medical companies. Skepticism is warranted.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  > No, it doesn't. It was never empirically proven that there is a connection between minimum wage and unemployment. (You are simplifying the whole economy to the labor market, but there is also demand side.) Nobody can prove something like that because it depends on dynamic characteristics of the economy. If everyone who makes minimum wage worked for the government and the government did nothing but pay them more money by taking on more public debt then the current-year employment rate obviously wouldn't go down, but our current economy doesn't look like that. Only ~1% of workers in the US make minimum wage, and they represent an even smaller percentage of total consumption than that. Increasing their wages is not going to create a large increase in local consumption, especially when some of the money goes to things that don't create new local unskilled jobs, like increasing salaries for existing CEOs, or leaving the local economy and going to workers in China or India, or creating demand for skilled jobs that the newly unemployed minimum wage workers aren't qualified for. And the entire wage increase comes out of the employer's pocket, which for middle class employers means that much less consumption by the employer -- the "increased demand" from higher minimum wage is the broken window fallacy. Meanwhile there are existing jobs that can justify the lower wage but not the higher wage, so those people become unemployed, which reduces local demand, not only due to the lost amount to the employee but also the profit that employee had previously generated for the employer and the surplus for the employer's customers and suppliers and so on.
  - hnbroseph 10y ago
    > Only ~1% of workers in the US make minimum wage does this statistic limit to literal minimum wage? so if someone is hired at +5 cents, do they not count?
    - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
      > does this statistic limit to literal minimum wage? so if someone is hired at +5 cents, do they not count? Including minimum wage +5 cents is still ~1%.
      - hnbroseph 10y ago
sealjam 10y ago
I accept your comment about 'supporting the poor' was probably flippant but still, I find the idea that the best way to support the poor is to make taxis cheaper, rather than increasing the/enforcing a minimum wage absolutely bizarre. I also wonder whether having these artificially low prices for things like Uber, reduces the incentive to improve more efficient modes of transportation like trains/buses.
- patrickaljord 10y ago
  > I find the idea that the best way to support the poor is to make taxis cheaper, rather than increasing the/enforcing a minimum wage absolutely bizarre. I explained this part in my comment. Enforcing a higher minimum wage just put people out of jobs, it doesn't give everyone a raise. So you're not raising people's wage, you're actually taking away from them their whole wage bringing it down to zero.
  - sealjam 10y ago
    >Enforcing a higher minimum wage just put people out of jobs... Maybe increasing the amount taxi drivers are paid would drive up the cost of taxis and thus drive down demand for taxis. This seems reasonable to me. We're defining a minimum amount somebody's time is worth, which means the cost of things that use peoples time go up. The root "problem" taxi drivers solve still exists - people still need to get around, but taxis aren't the only way to solve that problem. Train and bus services could be expanded or improved. The other thing to consider is that the extra money the taxi drivers earn will most likely provide other economic opportunities.
    - patrickaljord 10y ago
      > We're defining Who's We? Shouldn't taxi drivers be free to define how much they want to sell their time? Why should you decide for them? Isn't that paternalistic and anti-freedom? Why do you know better than they do what's best for them? Why not let them be?
      - 10y ago
scilro 10y ago
>Studies show that people are more depressed at home when unemployed and have more chance to improve their condition and salary by starting at lower paid jobs doing something. 1. Could you cite one of these studies? This is the first I've hearing of such a phenomenon. 2. That seems insanely counter-intuitive, and even if it's true, it probably hits a wall at some point. To use an extreme example, I for one would rather sit at home collecting an unemployment check than work at a literal sweatshop. If studies are showing people are happier without a living income than with one, then perhaps that says something about society's attitude towards work and how work is glorified as not a means to an end but an end unto itself. I would say that should be pushed back against, and that we should continue enforcing a living wage, and simply giving people money if they can't find a job that pays one.

js8 10y ago

> So you're saying only rich people should get taxi rides? I do agree with that, best if middle class people use public transport (or worse, their own car). > I thought Sweden supported the poor more. It has nothing to do with support of the poor. In India, taxis are incredibly cheap, and there is no shortage of poor people. Poor people can drive buses and trams, too, you know. > Also, you're aware that when the minimum wage is too high, it just means there will be more unemployment No, it doesn't. It was never empirically proven that there is a connection between minimum wage and unemployment. (You are simplifying the whole economy to the labor market, but there is also demand side.)

patrickaljord 10y ago
That's amazing, you're basically saying better services should be for the rich only while the poor should use lower public services while saying at the same time that you support the poor. Incredible. That's what socialism always does, pretends to help the poor but in the end only the elite benefits from it. > No, it doesn't. It was never empirically proven that there is a connection between minimum wage and unemployment. When it comes to low skill jobs, yes, increasing the minimum wage does create more unemployment as the middle class is not able to pay for them anymore, only the super rich. That's a well no fact, you can look it up.
- jamesblonde 10y ago
  That's not a fact. It's nonsense you believe to be a fact. Luxembourg, Sweden, Norway, Germany all have low unemployment rates (and higher total employment rates than the US) and have higher minimum wages. Economies adapt to higher minimum wages, they may lose jobs in the short term, then adapt and total employment can return to former levels if the correct policies are in place. Btw, when you say socialism pretends to help the poor, but helps the elite, that doesn't help your case. By all objective measures, the poor are better off in western european social democratic countries than in a free-for-all capitalist society, like the US. There are other models, like Singapore that also work well, FYI.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    > Luxembourg, Sweden, Norway, Germany all have low unemployment rates (and higher total employment rates than the US) and have higher minimum wages. France, Belgium and Ireland all have a higher minimum wage and higher unemployment rates than the US. Clearly the unemployment rate is affected by multiple factors. The issue is whether a higher minimum wage increases unemployment, not whether you can counteract it with other policies -- applying the other policies without raising the minimum wage could result in even less unemployment. > Btw, when you say socialism pretends to help the poor, but helps the elite, that doesn't help your case. There are a huge number of nominally socialist policies in the US that really exist at the behest of large corporations. Mortgage interest tax deduction -- "help people own a home", really makes home ownership more expensive and transfers tax dollars to mortgage banks. Ditto student loan interest subsidies. Affordable housing subsidies -- placate political demand for lower housing costs without actually lowering market rate housing costs for low-middle income working people, transfers tax dollars to landlords, encourages low income people to rent rather than own. Social security -- no progressive rate structure, tax cutoff for millionaires, benefits based on lifespan and historical income which both disadvantage lower income people. Tax deductions for employer-provided health insurance -- implicit subsidy to large insurance companies. Affordable Care Act -- huge tax dollar subsidy to large insurance companies, effectively prohibits people from saving money with high deductible insurance plans that are less profitable to same insurance companies, and discourage overconsumption and overpayment to medical companies. Skepticism is warranted.
AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> No, it doesn't. It was never empirically proven that there is a connection between minimum wage and unemployment. (You are simplifying the whole economy to the labor market, but there is also demand side.) Nobody can prove something like that because it depends on dynamic characteristics of the economy. If everyone who makes minimum wage worked for the government and the government did nothing but pay them more money by taking on more public debt then the current-year employment rate obviously wouldn't go down, but our current economy doesn't look like that. Only ~1% of workers in the US make minimum wage, and they represent an even smaller percentage of total consumption than that. Increasing their wages is not going to create a large increase in local consumption, especially when some of the money goes to things that don't create new local unskilled jobs, like increasing salaries for existing CEOs, or leaving the local economy and going to workers in China or India, or creating demand for skilled jobs that the newly unemployed minimum wage workers aren't qualified for. And the entire wage increase comes out of the employer's pocket, which for middle class employers means that much less consumption by the employer -- the "increased demand" from higher minimum wage is the broken window fallacy. Meanwhile there are existing jobs that can justify the lower wage but not the higher wage, so those people become unemployed, which reduces local demand, not only due to the lost amount to the employee but also the profit that employee had previously generated for the employer and the surplus for the employer's customers and suppliers and so on.
- hnbroseph 10y ago
  > Only ~1% of workers in the US make minimum wage does this statistic limit to literal minimum wage? so if someone is hired at +5 cents, do they not count?
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    > does this statistic limit to literal minimum wage? so if someone is hired at +5 cents, do they not count? Including minimum wage +5 cents is still ~1%.
    - hnbroseph 10y ago

sealjam 10y ago

I accept your comment about 'supporting the poor' was probably flippant but still, I find the idea that the best way to support the poor is to make taxis cheaper, rather than increasing the/enforcing a minimum wage absolutely bizarre. I also wonder whether having these artificially low prices for things like Uber, reduces the incentive to improve more efficient modes of transportation like trains/buses.

patrickaljord 10y ago
> I find the idea that the best way to support the poor is to make taxis cheaper, rather than increasing the/enforcing a minimum wage absolutely bizarre. I explained this part in my comment. Enforcing a higher minimum wage just put people out of jobs, it doesn't give everyone a raise. So you're not raising people's wage, you're actually taking away from them their whole wage bringing it down to zero.
- sealjam 10y ago
  >Enforcing a higher minimum wage just put people out of jobs... Maybe increasing the amount taxi drivers are paid would drive up the cost of taxis and thus drive down demand for taxis. This seems reasonable to me. We're defining a minimum amount somebody's time is worth, which means the cost of things that use peoples time go up. The root "problem" taxi drivers solve still exists - people still need to get around, but taxis aren't the only way to solve that problem. Train and bus services could be expanded or improved. The other thing to consider is that the extra money the taxi drivers earn will most likely provide other economic opportunities.
  - patrickaljord 10y ago
    > We're defining Who's We? Shouldn't taxi drivers be free to define how much they want to sell their time? Why should you decide for them? Isn't that paternalistic and anti-freedom? Why do you know better than they do what's best for them? Why not let them be?
    - 10y ago

scilro 10y ago

>Studies show that people are more depressed at home when unemployed and have more chance to improve their condition and salary by starting at lower paid jobs doing something. 1. Could you cite one of these studies? This is the first I've hearing of such a phenomenon. 2. That seems insanely counter-intuitive, and even if it's true, it probably hits a wall at some point. To use an extreme example, I for one would rather sit at home collecting an unemployment check than work at a literal sweatshop. If studies are showing people are happier without a living income than with one, then perhaps that says something about society's attitude towards work and how work is glorified as not a means to an end but an end unto itself. I would say that should be pushed back against, and that we should continue enforcing a living wage, and simply giving people money if they can't find a job that pays one.