5 ms·

I don't think the market explains most of those things. College tuition isn't because there is a short supply of educators and high supply of people wanting to

by 49531 8y ago

I don't think the market explains most of those things. College tuition isn't because there is a short supply of educators and high supply of people wanting to be educated. There's not much scarce about it. I would argue that tuition increases because we've streamlined student loans and marketed college as a tool of mobility. Doctor pay is also highly abstracted from something like "market forces". Rent prices are probably the closest thing to a commodity determined by market. Also, forcing employers to pay more is actually a supply/demand conundrum. If you want to buy unskilled labor for $8/hr but the going rate is $15/hr you're not going to have much luck.

Veelox 8y ago
I feel like we are strong agreeing. If we change the how student loans worked we could reduce the rate of increase. If we changed out medicine worked we could bring down prices (currently there are way to many links in the chain all making a buck). Also, if we allowed more housing to be built, prices would go down. >Also, forcing employers to pay more is actually a supply/demand conundrum. If you want to buy unskilled labor for $8/hr but the going rate is $15/hr you're not going to have much luck. The issue I have is most people who want a living wage, want to be done by setting the minimum wage so that a 40 hr week job gets you their. The causes lots of problems because it eliminates everyone from the labor market that cannot produce that much value. So in the end, you negatively impact the young, the old, the disabled, those who want to work part time, even ex-cons by setting minimum wage at a living wage value.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  I cannot disagree more. It's a "minimum wage". What good is it if it's not a living wage? What's the point of having a minimum wage that one cannot survive on?
  - plasticchris 8y ago
    Because not everyone needs to survive on it. As pointed out above students and the elderly can easily be priced out of the labor market if the minimum wage is pegged to this standard.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      I can't really agree. There are enough who do need to survive on it that it should be a living wage. And I can't agree that them being priced out is a problem, because back when it was a living wage, students were able to get part-time jobs at minimum wage just fine.
      - Veelox 8y ago
        My father went to college in the early 80s, he was able to work as a ditch digger in the sunmers and pay for his school, books, and living off of that. Let's say he worked 80 hr/week 12 weeks a year. Say it now cost 25k a year (that's low) to go to college. To cover that now you would need to net ~$26 hr to do the same thing. The issue isn't that wages have grown to slow, it is that important costs have grown to quickly.
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        "My father went to college in the early 80s, he was able to work as a ditch digger in the sunmers and pay for his school, books, and living off of that." Your example is completely invalid today. "The issue isn't that wages have grown to slow, it is that important costs have grown to quickly." And employers bear the responsibility for that.
        Veelox 8y ago
        >>"The issue isn't that wages have grown to slow, it is that important costs have grown to quickly." >And employers bear the responsibility for that. Per the article [0] after adjusting for inflation "That makes the current cost [of college] more than two-and-a-half times as much as it was in 1988 — a markup of 163 percent." How are employers responsible for a 163% increase in the real cost of college? [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/29/how-much-college-tuition-has-increased-from-1988-to-2018.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/29/how-much-college-tuition-has...
  - Veelox 8y ago
    Honestly I would be fine with no minimum wage. I also tend a little more libertarian than most. I am fine with the minimum wage setting a floor to how much people are paid because it cuts down on explotive practices. That said, putting the minimum wage to an amount that is surviable at 40 hours a week removes people on the margins that would benefit from a job that paid these than a living wage. Note I am taking as a given that a business will only employe someone if they on average produce more benefit than they cost. Two examples of people on the margin that would otherwise be priced out. Frank is retired and draws social security he is old and doesn't move as fast any more. He gets a job with the park service cleaning/resetting campgrounds. He enjoys being outside, interacting with campers, and the extra money is nice. Since the service pays per spot cleaned, Frank will never make a living wage. I think Frank should be able to take this job. James just got done serving 5 years for felony distribution of crack. Seeing his son only once a month has made James decide to go on the straight and narrow from now on. As an ex-con it is hard for him to find a job. In fact because ex-con tend to be bad employees most business don't bother. If there was no minimum wage a business could hire James at a rate of the average ex-con and he could prove himself a good worker and move to a better paying job. I think such a job should exist for James. I think these are two examples of productive economic activity that would otherwise be impossible if the minimum wage was set to a living wage.
    - user5994461 8y ago
      Frank should get a part time job. One issue with the current model is that Frank has to retire in due time. He cannot be allowed to work for cheaper while receiving benefits, otherwise he's taking the spot of younger folks who are supposed to be working there at a normal wage and finance his benefits.
      - Veelox 8y ago
        I guess you misread my example. Frank is not worth $15+ a hour. Thus a business will never hire him for a part time job because it is a net negative for the business at that price point but both Frank and the business would be willing to agree to a wage that is less than a living wage.

by 49531 8y ago

Veelox 8y ago

I feel like we are strong agreeing. If we change the how student loans worked we could reduce the rate of increase. If we changed out medicine worked we could bring down prices (currently there are way to many links in the chain all making a buck). Also, if we allowed more housing to be built, prices would go down. >Also, forcing employers to pay more is actually a supply/demand conundrum. If you want to buy unskilled labor for $8/hr but the going rate is $15/hr you're not going to have much luck. The issue I have is most people who want a living wage, want to be done by setting the minimum wage so that a 40 hr week job gets you their. The causes lots of problems because it eliminates everyone from the labor market that cannot produce that much value. So in the end, you negatively impact the young, the old, the disabled, those who want to work part time, even ex-cons by setting minimum wage at a living wage value.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
I cannot disagree more. It's a "minimum wage". What good is it if it's not a living wage? What's the point of having a minimum wage that one cannot survive on?
- plasticchris 8y ago
  Because not everyone needs to survive on it. As pointed out above students and the elderly can easily be priced out of the labor market if the minimum wage is pegged to this standard.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    I can't really agree. There are enough who do need to survive on it that it should be a living wage. And I can't agree that them being priced out is a problem, because back when it was a living wage, students were able to get part-time jobs at minimum wage just fine.
    - Veelox 8y ago
      My father went to college in the early 80s, he was able to work as a ditch digger in the sunmers and pay for his school, books, and living off of that. Let's say he worked 80 hr/week 12 weeks a year. Say it now cost 25k a year (that's low) to go to college. To cover that now you would need to net ~$26 hr to do the same thing. The issue isn't that wages have grown to slow, it is that important costs have grown to quickly.
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        "My father went to college in the early 80s, he was able to work as a ditch digger in the sunmers and pay for his school, books, and living off of that." Your example is completely invalid today. "The issue isn't that wages have grown to slow, it is that important costs have grown to quickly." And employers bear the responsibility for that.
        Veelox 8y ago
        >>"The issue isn't that wages have grown to slow, it is that important costs have grown to quickly." >And employers bear the responsibility for that. Per the article [0] after adjusting for inflation "That makes the current cost [of college] more than two-and-a-half times as much as it was in 1988 — a markup of 163 percent." How are employers responsible for a 163% increase in the real cost of college? [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/29/how-much-college-tuition-has-increased-from-1988-to-2018.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/29/how-much-college-tuition-has...
- Veelox 8y ago
  Honestly I would be fine with no minimum wage. I also tend a little more libertarian than most. I am fine with the minimum wage setting a floor to how much people are paid because it cuts down on explotive practices. That said, putting the minimum wage to an amount that is surviable at 40 hours a week removes people on the margins that would benefit from a job that paid these than a living wage. Note I am taking as a given that a business will only employe someone if they on average produce more benefit than they cost. Two examples of people on the margin that would otherwise be priced out. Frank is retired and draws social security he is old and doesn't move as fast any more. He gets a job with the park service cleaning/resetting campgrounds. He enjoys being outside, interacting with campers, and the extra money is nice. Since the service pays per spot cleaned, Frank will never make a living wage. I think Frank should be able to take this job. James just got done serving 5 years for felony distribution of crack. Seeing his son only once a month has made James decide to go on the straight and narrow from now on. As an ex-con it is hard for him to find a job. In fact because ex-con tend to be bad employees most business don't bother. If there was no minimum wage a business could hire James at a rate of the average ex-con and he could prove himself a good worker and move to a better paying job. I think such a job should exist for James. I think these are two examples of productive economic activity that would otherwise be impossible if the minimum wage was set to a living wage.
  - user5994461 8y ago
    Frank should get a part time job. One issue with the current model is that Frank has to retire in due time. He cannot be allowed to work for cheaper while receiving benefits, otherwise he's taking the spot of younger folks who are supposed to be working there at a normal wage and finance his benefits.
    - Veelox 8y ago
      I guess you misread my example. Frank is not worth $15+ a hour. Thus a business will never hire him for a part time job because it is a net negative for the business at that price point but both Frank and the business would be willing to agree to a wage that is less than a living wage.