7 ms·

If one can not afford to pay a living wage for these jobs, then these jobs should not have existed in the first place.

taway_1212 9y ago
Not everyone is expecting a living wage though. Case in point - I have a family member who's making less than minimum wage (which alone would be barely sufficient to survive), but when she combines this with her husband's income, she's not living terribly bad. If her boss was forced to pay minimum wage and adhere to all other laws, he'd likely close the business and she (my family member) would end up being worse off. The reason why he'd close the business is that it's a shitty clothes shop where the increases employee costs would eat a lot of his (meager) profits.
- thanksgiving 9y ago
  Why would we be worse off if the shop closed? I can imagine gutting minimum wage in a basic income works but even then I think we'd need workplace safety regulations and so on.
- alkonaut 9y ago
  > he'd likely close the business and she (my family member) would end up being worse off. This is exactly the train of thought I think is incorrect: Businesses that can't pay workers a living wage should have to shut down. Workers (as a collective, and in the long run - not individuals in the short term obviously) are better off. The idea is that businesses should compete on efficiency, not lower wages. When a business that can't pay a living wage closes, another can take its place that hopefully can. > she combines this with her husband's income This is another reason for having living wages: this persons low wage makes her economically dependent on another person. This might be a happy marriage but what about all marriages that aren't? Living wages means people can leave destructive and abusive relationships too.
  - grondilu 9y ago
    > Businesses that can't pay workers a living wage should have to shut down. This should emerge as a natural consequence of economic reality. If workers can't earn a living from a business, they are supposed to either resign or die (per definition). And the business would have to either increase its wages or shut down. There should be no need to regulate that with laws.
    - alkonaut 9y ago
      There is no need to regulate this with laws if the parties of the labor market are of comparable strength (which is the definition of a functioning market - that the parties involved have some kind of parity). In most parts of the US labor market there is no such power parity between employees and employers - and minimum wage laws are just trying to band aid the problem instead of addressing the root cause. I doubt the US will see scandinavian levels of worker organization any time soon, but a reasonable fix would be to have a social safety network that is so strong that it competes with employment. A non time-limited unemployment insurance that paid a reasonable fraction of the minimum wage (e.g. 50-75%) would likely have a significant effect on the bargaining position of workers.
    - tarboreus 9y ago
      Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?
  - taway_1212 9y ago
    > The idea is that businesses should compete on efficiency, not lower wages. When a business that can't pay a living wage closes, another can take its place that hopefully can. In this case, these shops are located in a sort-of marketplace, where there are dozens of shops selling very similar goods. They all effectively share the same customer base and they are all barely functioning, and are only doing that thanks to avoiding all sorts of laws. If they started paying minimum wage, some of them would close, which would increase profits for the rest, allowing them to stay in business. From the workers' perspective though, it would create a bimodal distribution where employees of surviving shops are better off, while the rest is fired. I'm not sure if that's a positive outcome.
grondilu 9y ago
Minimal wage is nothing but an instance of price control[1] and "Although price controls are sometimes used by governments, economists usually agree that price controls don't accomplish what they are intended to do and are generally to be avoided." 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_controls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_controls
- alkonaut 9y ago
  Yup. So having minimum wages to ensure people can make a living wage is exactly the same as having to have price fixing for food to ensure people can eat. It's a knee jerk response to a fundamental problem (that workers make too little in relation to price levels). The problem with the US discourse on the subject is that it's a debate for/against higher minimum wages rather than a debate of "what regulations need to change so that the minimum wage without regulation is a livable wage".
- DarkKomunalec 9y ago
  You can just as well look at it as an instance of collective bargaining, where workers collectively set the minimum wage they're willing to accept.
- bryanlarsen 9y ago
  Would you rather have price controls or a subsidy? People that support themselves on jobs that pay less than minimum wage generally need support from the state to live. So a minimum wage is basically a refusal by the state to subsidize business.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - grondilu 9y ago
    > People that support themselves on jobs that pay less than minimum wage generally need support from the state to live. Unemployment does exist and it is not lethal.
masterleep 9y ago
That is like saying, "If a food is not perfectly nutritious according to my pet theory, it should be banned."
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

Not everyone is expecting a living wage though. Case in point - I have a family member who's making less than minimum wage (which alone would be barely sufficient to survive), but when she combines this with her husband's income, she's not living terribly bad. If her boss was forced to pay minimum wage and adhere to all other laws, he'd likely close the business and she (my family member) would end up being worse off. The reason why he'd close the business is that it's a shitty clothes shop where the increases employee costs would eat a lot of his (meager) profits.

thanksgiving 9y ago
Why would we be worse off if the shop closed? I can imagine gutting minimum wage in a basic income works but even then I think we'd need workplace safety regulations and so on.
alkonaut 9y ago
> he'd likely close the business and she (my family member) would end up being worse off. This is exactly the train of thought I think is incorrect: Businesses that can't pay workers a living wage should have to shut down. Workers (as a collective, and in the long run - not individuals in the short term obviously) are better off. The idea is that businesses should compete on efficiency, not lower wages. When a business that can't pay a living wage closes, another can take its place that hopefully can. > she combines this with her husband's income This is another reason for having living wages: this persons low wage makes her economically dependent on another person. This might be a happy marriage but what about all marriages that aren't? Living wages means people can leave destructive and abusive relationships too.
- grondilu 9y ago
  > Businesses that can't pay workers a living wage should have to shut down. This should emerge as a natural consequence of economic reality. If workers can't earn a living from a business, they are supposed to either resign or die (per definition). And the business would have to either increase its wages or shut down. There should be no need to regulate that with laws.
  - alkonaut 9y ago
    There is no need to regulate this with laws if the parties of the labor market are of comparable strength (which is the definition of a functioning market - that the parties involved have some kind of parity). In most parts of the US labor market there is no such power parity between employees and employers - and minimum wage laws are just trying to band aid the problem instead of addressing the root cause. I doubt the US will see scandinavian levels of worker organization any time soon, but a reasonable fix would be to have a social safety network that is so strong that it competes with employment. A non time-limited unemployment insurance that paid a reasonable fraction of the minimum wage (e.g. 50-75%) would likely have a significant effect on the bargaining position of workers.
  - tarboreus 9y ago
    Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?
- taway_1212 9y ago
  > The idea is that businesses should compete on efficiency, not lower wages. When a business that can't pay a living wage closes, another can take its place that hopefully can. In this case, these shops are located in a sort-of marketplace, where there are dozens of shops selling very similar goods. They all effectively share the same customer base and they are all barely functioning, and are only doing that thanks to avoiding all sorts of laws. If they started paying minimum wage, some of them would close, which would increase profits for the rest, allowing them to stay in business. From the workers' perspective though, it would create a bimodal distribution where employees of surviving shops are better off, while the rest is fired. I'm not sure if that's a positive outcome.

grondilu 9y ago

Minimal wage is nothing but an instance of price control[1] and "Although price controls are sometimes used by governments, economists usually agree that price controls don't accomplish what they are intended to do and are generally to be avoided." 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_controls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_controls

alkonaut 9y ago
Yup. So having minimum wages to ensure people can make a living wage is exactly the same as having to have price fixing for food to ensure people can eat. It's a knee jerk response to a fundamental problem (that workers make too little in relation to price levels). The problem with the US discourse on the subject is that it's a debate for/against higher minimum wages rather than a debate of "what regulations need to change so that the minimum wage without regulation is a livable wage".
DarkKomunalec 9y ago
You can just as well look at it as an instance of collective bargaining, where workers collectively set the minimum wage they're willing to accept.
bryanlarsen 9y ago
Would you rather have price controls or a subsidy? People that support themselves on jobs that pay less than minimum wage generally need support from the state to live. So a minimum wage is basically a refusal by the state to subsidize business.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- grondilu 9y ago
  > People that support themselves on jobs that pay less than minimum wage generally need support from the state to live. Unemployment does exist and it is not lethal.

masterleep 9y ago

That is like saying, "If a food is not perfectly nutritious according to my pet theory, it should be banned."

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]