4 ms·

So your idea is that they should be employees, not contractors, and so subject to minimum wage laws? Fair enough, but are you aware of why most economists beli

So your idea is that they should be employees, not contractors, and so subject to minimum wage laws? Fair enough, but are you aware of why most economists believe minimum wage laws to be bad for the working poor? These employees are not a captive workforce--they are by their own free will making a choice to do this work in exchange for this wage.

toomuchtodo 9y ago
> So your idea is that they should be employees, not contractors, and so subject to minimum wage laws? In the case of Uber, Uber dictates their wage. It dictates the rules of the engagement almost entirely. This doesn't pass the independent contractor test. > Fair enough, but are you aware of why most economists believe minimum wage laws to be bad for the working poor? Most economists live in a fantasyland of theory. I hope they're not too surprised with the sharpness of pitchforks bursting their bubble. If labor isn't as valuable, and needs to survive, you continue to ratchet up wages in lockstep with social safety nets. The productivity to fund this is there: https://thecurrentmoment.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/productivity-and-real-wages.jpg https://thecurrentmoment.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/product... > These employees are not a captive workforce--they are by their own free will making a choice to do this work in exchange for this rate. When you have few economic options, you are an economic serf. EDIT: (hn throttling, can't reply) > It turns out our government is less concerned with effective redistribution to the poor than to the rich and to itself. If government can screw this up so badly, what makes you think they can micromanage the salaries, services and management of millions of businesses? Every other industrialized country has a lower Gini coefficient (measure of income equality), and more market regulation. If the private sector can do so much damage, what makes you think they should be permitted to operate in a free market environment? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq... @adrianN: If higher wages speed automation, you tax automation to fund social safety nets. The automation owner gets to receive remuneration for owning the automation, and society benefits by receiving part of that remuneration. Low wage jobs should disappear.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  It turns out that not just in economic theory, but in practice as well, it is both more efficient and probably even more fair, to allow markets to function and innovators to compete, and let government take care of redistribution. It turns out our government is less concerned with effective redistribution to the poor than it is with redistribution to the rich and to itself. If government can screw this up so badly, what makes you think they can micromanage the salaries of millions of businesses?
- adrianN 9y ago
  I'm no economist and I'm generally in favor of paying people living wages. However, it is my naive opinion that high minimum wages will just speed up the push towards automation. So they are just a stopgap measure before the formerly poorly paying jobs disappear completely.
- we_re_new 9y ago
  Careful there. This is a neoliberal site pretenting to be a serious open minded hacker one. You _will_ get downvoted.
- hueving 9y ago
  Why is income equality relevant in this case? The presence of billionaires in your country does not automatically imply that the poorest people are worse off than if the rich were driven out. I think what you were looking for is average income or purchasing power for the different percentages of the population.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    > Why is income equality relevant in this case? The presence of billionaires in your country does not automatically imply that the poorest people are worse off than if the rich were driven out. The policies that allow those billionaires to exist without taxing them at a higher rate is the problem. The age ol "capital treated better than labor" issue. Also: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/11/imf-higher-taxes-rich-inequality-jeremy-corbyn-labour-donald-trump https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/11/imf-higher-... "Higher income tax rates for the rich would help reduce inequality without having an adverse impact on growth, the International Monetary Fund has said. The Washington-based IMF used its influential half-yearly fiscal monitor to demolish the argument that economic growth would suffer if governments in advanced Western countries forced the top 1% of earners to pay more tax. The IMF said tax theory suggested there should be “significantly higher” tax rates for those on higher incomes but the argument against doing so was that hitting the rich would be bad for growth."

toomuchtodo 9y ago

> So your idea is that they should be employees, not contractors, and so subject to minimum wage laws? In the case of Uber, Uber dictates their wage. It dictates the rules of the engagement almost entirely. This doesn't pass the independent contractor test. > Fair enough, but are you aware of why most economists believe minimum wage laws to be bad for the working poor? Most economists live in a fantasyland of theory. I hope they're not too surprised with the sharpness of pitchforks bursting their bubble. If labor isn't as valuable, and needs to survive, you continue to ratchet up wages in lockstep with social safety nets. The productivity to fund this is there: https://thecurrentmoment.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/productivity-and-real-wages.jpg https://thecurrentmoment.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/product... > These employees are not a captive workforce--they are by their own free will making a choice to do this work in exchange for this rate. When you have few economic options, you are an economic serf. EDIT: (hn throttling, can't reply) > It turns out our government is less concerned with effective redistribution to the poor than to the rich and to itself. If government can screw this up so badly, what makes you think they can micromanage the salaries, services and management of millions of businesses? Every other industrialized country has a lower Gini coefficient (measure of income equality), and more market regulation. If the private sector can do so much damage, what makes you think they should be permitted to operate in a free market environment? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq... @adrianN: If higher wages speed automation, you tax automation to fund social safety nets. The automation owner gets to receive remuneration for owning the automation, and society benefits by receiving part of that remuneration. Low wage jobs should disappear.

wallace_f 9y ago
It turns out that not just in economic theory, but in practice as well, it is both more efficient and probably even more fair, to allow markets to function and innovators to compete, and let government take care of redistribution. It turns out our government is less concerned with effective redistribution to the poor than it is with redistribution to the rich and to itself. If government can screw this up so badly, what makes you think they can micromanage the salaries of millions of businesses?
adrianN 9y ago
I'm no economist and I'm generally in favor of paying people living wages. However, it is my naive opinion that high minimum wages will just speed up the push towards automation. So they are just a stopgap measure before the formerly poorly paying jobs disappear completely.
we_re_new 9y ago
Careful there. This is a neoliberal site pretenting to be a serious open minded hacker one. You _will_ get downvoted.
hueving 9y ago
Why is income equality relevant in this case? The presence of billionaires in your country does not automatically imply that the poorest people are worse off than if the rich were driven out. I think what you were looking for is average income or purchasing power for the different percentages of the population.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  > Why is income equality relevant in this case? The presence of billionaires in your country does not automatically imply that the poorest people are worse off than if the rich were driven out. The policies that allow those billionaires to exist without taxing them at a higher rate is the problem. The age ol "capital treated better than labor" issue. Also: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/11/imf-higher-taxes-rich-inequality-jeremy-corbyn-labour-donald-trump https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/11/imf-higher-... "Higher income tax rates for the rich would help reduce inequality without having an adverse impact on growth, the International Monetary Fund has said. The Washington-based IMF used its influential half-yearly fiscal monitor to demolish the argument that economic growth would suffer if governments in advanced Western countries forced the top 1% of earners to pay more tax. The IMF said tax theory suggested there should be “significantly higher” tax rates for those on higher incomes but the argument against doing so was that hitting the rich would be bad for growth."