4 ms·
When you say "we agree" - does that include the people that end up unemployed because the expected value of their work is less than the minimum wage? Whereas ha
by a008t 8y ago
When you say "we agree" - does that include the people that end up unemployed because the expected value of their work is less than the minimum wage? Whereas had they been allowed to work for less than minimum wage, they would have been able to build a track record of reliability, reducing the risks of hiring them in the future and thus increasing the expected value of their labour?
I would love to see the data, but in my experience of growing up in a very poor neighborhood, getting a foot in the labour market is the difficult part; once you are in, moving up is relatively easier.
- s73v3r_ 8y agoI'm sorry, but I absolutely reject that argument. No business is not hiring someone because they can't pay them below minimum wage.
- satyrnein 8y agoIt's not as direct as that, but certainly the more expensive labor is, the more incentive companies have for automation, which reduces the number of jobs. If minimum wage were lower, we might not see so many self checkouts at grocery stores, and instead employ more cashiers. I'm not saying the minimum wage or automation are bad, but it's simplistic to claim wage levels and employment have no relationship.
- a008t 8y agoYou have to agree, though, that it depends on the value that the minimum wage is set at? If you set the minimum wage at a senior developer level, anyone at the junior level will be unemployable. So if we agree that at some level of the minimum wage, businesses would not be hiring someone because they cannot pay them below minimum wage - then why do you think this is not happening to some people at the current level of minimum wage?