6 ms·
Hey, how about instead of requiring employers to pay more we reduce the cost housing, medicine, and schooling which are the biggest drains on people expenses.
by Veelox 8y ago
Hey, how about instead of requiring employers to pay more we reduce the cost housing, medicine, and schooling which are the biggest drains on people expenses.
- retbull 8y agoSo instead of having someone pay more for what is a scarce resource lets just reverse inflation? I'm not seeing how that is easier.
- Veelox 8y agoRent, medical expenses, and college expenses have all out paced inflation so it is more important to fix the underlying issues in those markets than force employers to pay more.
- jessaustin 8y agoDoing away with health insurance and student loans is unlikely to be a popular political position...
- Veelox 8y agoNo, but changing the health system so it is cheaper could be workable. Also, if made colleges partially responsible for ensuring loans were repaid it would reduce student debt.
- jfoutz 8y agoSure. That would be an efficient solution. No one wants to take that hit though. So we’re going to do the other thing.
- s73v3r_ 8y agoThat doesn't make a lick of sense. Why are employers entitled to cheap labor?
- agensaequivocum 8y agoTrue. They're not. Neither are employees entitled to high wages.
- s73v3r_ 8y agoYet, we're in an economy where employers are constantly complaining they can't find workers.
- Veelox 8y agoWhen you hear someone say "I cannot find qualified workers" always add "at the price I am offering" because if they doubled or tripled the wage they offered, they could find a qualified person so it is a matter of price, not a matter of availability.
- Veelox 8y agoThe same reason that landlords are entitled to expensive rent, doctors to high salaries, and colleges to high tuition. Its the market rate for those things. I would say there are much better second order effects from focusing on bringing prices down than the second order effects of focusing on forcing employers to pay more.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago"Its the market rate for those things. " I don't think you can say that when they're the ones who set those rates. Especially when they constantly complain about not being able to find qualified workers. "I would say there are much better second order effects from focusing on bringing prices down than the second order effects of focusing on forcing employers to pay more." Maybe, maybe not. But that's not an argument for not increasing wages.
- Veelox 8y agoWhen you hear someone say "I cannot find qualified workers" always add "at the price I am offering" because if they doubled or tripled the wage they offered, they could find a qualified person so it is a matter of price, not a matter of availability. >Maybe, maybe not. But that's not an argument for not increasing wages. The initial comment was about paying a living wage. There are two ways to make a non-living wage a living wage. Make the wage higher or make the living cheaper. I think way to much political energy is focused on making wages higher when I think it would be more productive in the long run to focus on making living cheaper.
- InclinedPlane 8y agoWhy not both? The economy is healthier with safety nets that prevent people from "dropping out" of the economy through homeless, excessive debt, being trapped under huge debt burdens that limit their options, etc. But the economy is also healthier when it is fully participatory. When only a small slice of the public has any significant amount of discretionary spending the economy tends to stagnate.
- Veelox 8y agoThe biggest change to safety nets I want to see is the restructuring of benefit phase out because currently people get in a position that earn more money will decrease their standard of living. That is an awful thing for them and for society.
- orangecat 8y agoYes. That's why the argument against basic income of "it removes people's incentive to work" is so frustrating; to the extent that it's true, it's even more true of the current system.