9 ms·

Opponents of the minimum wage argue that it reduces employment by creating an artificial floor on wages, that jobs are lost because employers can't afford to pa

by czep 8y ago

Opponents of the minimum wage argue that it reduces employment by creating an artificial floor on wages, that jobs are lost because employers can't afford to pay the minimum. But if you can't pay the minimum, then you didn't really have a job to offer in the first place! By extension of this logic, employers could argue that they are losing jobs because they can only afford to pay someone who will work 12 hours a day, or can only afford to pay child workers, or can only afford to hire if they get a huge payroll tax cut. Granted, in the job market there are people who would take sub-minimum wage pay for a variety of reasons -- desperation, lack of education, lack of options near their home, felony record, undocumented status, etc. But it is disingenuous to suggest that just because there are people who would take such jobs, that our economy should allow employers to get away with it. If you can't pay a basic living wage, for fair hours, in safe conditions, with necessary medical benefits, then you don't have a job to offer.

ttoinou 8y ago
There is no definition of "minimum", "basic living", "safe conditions", "fair hours" etc. Fair hours used to be 10 hours a day 6 days / week. Living used to be able to survive a famine. Safe conditions used to be hunting for animals. All it matters is people interacting voluntarily, that's the only argument against minimum wage. But it is disingenuous to suggest that just because there are people who would take such jobs, that our economy should allow employers to get away with it Ex-felons would also "get away with it" (remember there are always at least two sides in an exchange), but they would be in a better situation if they accepted the job
- czep 8y ago
  > All it matters is people interacting voluntarily My point is that it is most certainly not voluntary. There are people in the world who are not as lucky or intelligent or resourceful as you, me, and most others on HN. Try to empathize and put yourself in the shoes of the disadvantaged, they do not know the world as we do, they cannot shop around for high paying jobs, and if they miss a paycheck, they may very well lose their housing. Given this asymmetry, society absolutely needs to step in to enforce basic protections that the free market cannot solve.
  - ttoinou 8y ago
    Putting myself in their shoes is exactly why I think they should be allowed to do whatever they think is best for them. What paycheck would they risk loosing if they can't find a job anyway ? Minimum wage exclude and marginalize poor people Asymmetry and inequalities are everywhere. I don't know which perfect egalitarian symmetric insert here another utopic adjective society you live in, but it's not certainly not mine
    - java_script 8y ago
      > I think they should be allowed to do whatever they think is best for them. I think they should be allowed to vote and agitate for whatever they think is best for them. And thus.... viola, minimum wage and subsequent increases. Although I know majorities are a touchy subject with libertarians since there are like six of you total nowadays.
      - ttoinou 8y ago
        I agree with the first sentence. The rest of it is a personal attack, please read the guidelines and respect rules of places you make use of https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        java_script 8y ago
        Thank you for the constructive feedback. I have some to offer as well. This is you: https://i.imgur.com/jPyEBOD.jpg https://i.imgur.com/jPyEBOD.jpg
        ttoinou 8y ago
        Very mature, thanks for passing by and trying to change my opinion
        dang 8y ago
        That is so... zany that I'm not going to ban you for it, plus it actually took a bit of work to make. But come on.
- CydeWeys 8y ago
  I'm not following this argument. So, because the world used to terrible centuries ago, and still is in some undeveloped or wartorn nations, we should be OK with it continuing to be terrible here in one of the richest nations in the world, even though it doesn't have to be?
  - ttoinou 8y ago
    The argument is 1) there is no common definition of what is acceptable, globally it depends on our current living standard hence ultimately the society's level of development 2) on an individual level some would not make the same choices as you so it is ridiculous for you to make judgments on behalf of others 3) if we had implemented those kind of laws earlier, either everybody was forbidden of improving its conditions and freely shop for employers, there would have been enormous inflation (see Venezuela), or the laws wouldn't have been followed at all (most probable). we should be OK with it continuing to be terrible The fact is that most poor people right now are better off than two centuries ago ; so your adjective "terrible" is relative. In 200 years from now, maybe not having its own personal spaceship will be deemed "terrible" by some ;)
    - hannasanarion 8y ago
      >if we had implemented those kind of laws earlier, either everybody was forbidden of improving its conditions and freely shop for employers, there would have been enormous inflation (see Venezuela), 99% sure Venezuela's inflation problems come more from the fact that the president-dictator takes monetary policy advice from a ghost-parrot, and not as much from implementing occupational safety standards that have been normal in North America and Europe for a century.
      - ttoinou 8y ago
        Inflation can come from different factor ;I was not saying that Venezuela had gone down that precise path. Sorry I wasn't more clear. Anyway, if the cost of work becomes overnight at minimum 1 million USD per month, what do you think would happen ?
      - 8y ago
- TheCoelacanth 8y ago
  The voluntary interaction argument falls apart in the presence of a labor monopsony.
  - ttoinou 8y ago
    It's not a full monopsony, there's often choice. And increasing minimum wage increases their monopsony power because it favors big companies that can afford it (here, Amazon).
exabrial 8y ago
The point about minimum wage is to prevent labor abuse in crappy week conditions by making sure people are just expensive enough to take their safety seriously.
- ttoinou 8y ago
  Do you prefer people out of jobs without being able to sustain their self rather than people taking jobs that you judge yourself are bad for them ?
  - exabrial 8y ago
    False dichotomy. I prefer to let people run their own lives instead of dictating it to them.
    - ttoinou 8y ago
      Being able to run its own life and not being able to choose its employer(s) seem contradictory to me
      - Frondo 8y ago
        Anyone can choose their employer, it's the employer who can't pay less than some amount we as a society deem is a necessary minimum. If anyone's going to have their freedom restrained, let's let it be the folks running businesses, hiring and firing, etc. They already hold more cards.
bhupy 8y ago
> If you can't pay a basic living wage, for fair hours, in safe conditions, with necessary medical benefits, then you don't have a job to offer. Why not let the employees decide if the job is worth taking? If there exists people willing to voluntarily take a job given its wage/conditions, you have a job to offer.
- codedokode 8y ago
  This will lead to worsening conditions. For example, a person who lives with parents and doesn't pay any rent can work for significantly lower salary than the one who lives alone. For him even $1/hour is better than getting $0 sitting at home. Or immigrants who live 8 people in a room will be happy to work for a lower pay. The number of available jobs is limited. So people with higher demands, especially people with kids, will have a tough choice: either stay unemployed or live 8 people in a room too.
  - civilian 8y ago
    The number of available jobs is _not_ limited, it's a supply and demand curve! An employer doesn't just have X jobs to fill a business. They have some number of tasks to do, and there's always more they could be doing. If they have the option of hiring some people at $5/hr and some at $10/hr, the boss can figure out how to get at least $5/hr in value out of the cheaper people he hires. I think the person living with parents is a bad example too. $1/hr is nothing, and it'd probably just be better for that person to not have a job at all. Sometimes doing nothing is better than having a job that crappy.
    - codedokode 8y ago
      $1/hour is not nothing. If you work full month you get $160 which is more than $0 that you get playing games all day long (also you spend less on an electicity bill). So it is more beneficial than doing nothing. In a market without minimun wage you'll have to compete against such people for a job.
  - bhupy 8y ago
    This sounds like a welfare problem and not a wage problem. If the market drives down the cost of labor, that's good for everyone. If there exists people whose skillsets aren't sufficient to maintain some minimum standard of living, we ought to give them welfare, either in the form of direct money or "free" goods/services.
driverdan 8y ago
> If you can't pay a basic living wage Stop right there. What about people who don't need a basic living wage, like students who still live with their parents? Why should they be pushed out of the market? I worked in high school, starting when I was 16. It was minimum wage. Without that job I wouldn't have been able to afford a car (necessary where I lived), travel to Greece and Italy, and have my own spending money. I also gained a lot of real world experience. Employers should pay what the position is worth. Why should people like you have the right to tell people like me that we can't willingly work?
- HappyRobot 8y ago
  > What about people who don't need a basic living wage, like students who still live with their parents? Why should they be pushed out of the market? Part time work. You can work 15-25 hours a week at the higher minimum wage while having time to study or deal with other things. A proper minimum wage should be the amount for a worker to live on after working 40 hours a week. If an employee can not make enough to live in that area (after working for 40 hours), the employer should not be there and is taking advantage of the employees.
- czep 8y ago
  You raise an interesting point, but I am honestly more concerned with people who would otherwise starve or be homeless rather than students who would not be able to backpack around Europe for a summer. Minimum wage (and other worker protections) are aimed at protecting those who literally have no other options. > Why should people like you have the right to tell people like me that we can't willingly work? This isn't personal, I as a member of this society have a right to make my point that the powerful shouldn't exploit the powerless. Not that I'm calling you a trust fund kid, but this is the same argument you hear from people who are sitting on inherited wealth, and appeal to "natural rights" to keep the evil tax man from taking anything away from what is rightfully theirs. Rightfully theirs, by birth alone, mind you. Think for a minute about the opposite end of the spectrum, people born into abject poverty. They have a right to a dignified life, with a job that pays them enough to survive, rather than having to beg for whatever Johnny Moneybags decides to toss into the street from the window of his Rolls.
merpnderp 8y ago
If someone is willing to work for $5/hour, I can't pay them $5/hour, even if that's all I can afford. Not all jobs should have to pay a basic living wage for two reasons. Not all jobs create enough wealth to justify that wage, and there are lots of people looking for side work, or just a bit of extra cash, and aren't relying upon this type of job for their living. A 12 year old running a paper delivery route on their bike doesn't need $15/hour and isn't creating $15/hour in wealth, yet the kid and the employer would be happy to agree on some lesser amount.
sigzero 8y ago
> If you can't pay a basic living wage, for fair hours, in safe conditions, with necessary medical benefits, then you don't have a job to offer. That is so incredibly incorrect.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
kazinator 8y ago
> But if you can't pay the minimum, then you didn't really have a job to offer in the first place! Which minimum? Today's minimum, or yesterday's? > But it is disingenuous to suggest that just because there are people who would take such jobs, that our economy should allow employers to get away with it. How is it disingenuous if someone says such a thing and honestly means every word of it?

by czep 8y ago

ttoinou 8y ago

There is no definition of "minimum", "basic living", "safe conditions", "fair hours" etc. Fair hours used to be 10 hours a day 6 days / week. Living used to be able to survive a famine. Safe conditions used to be hunting for animals. All it matters is people interacting voluntarily, that's the only argument against minimum wage. But it is disingenuous to suggest that just because there are people who would take such jobs, that our economy should allow employers to get away with it Ex-felons would also "get away with it" (remember there are always at least two sides in an exchange), but they would be in a better situation if they accepted the job

czep 8y ago
> All it matters is people interacting voluntarily My point is that it is most certainly not voluntary. There are people in the world who are not as lucky or intelligent or resourceful as you, me, and most others on HN. Try to empathize and put yourself in the shoes of the disadvantaged, they do not know the world as we do, they cannot shop around for high paying jobs, and if they miss a paycheck, they may very well lose their housing. Given this asymmetry, society absolutely needs to step in to enforce basic protections that the free market cannot solve.
- ttoinou 8y ago
  Putting myself in their shoes is exactly why I think they should be allowed to do whatever they think is best for them. What paycheck would they risk loosing if they can't find a job anyway ? Minimum wage exclude and marginalize poor people Asymmetry and inequalities are everywhere. I don't know which perfect egalitarian symmetric insert here another utopic adjective society you live in, but it's not certainly not mine
  - java_script 8y ago
    > I think they should be allowed to do whatever they think is best for them. I think they should be allowed to vote and agitate for whatever they think is best for them. And thus.... viola, minimum wage and subsequent increases. Although I know majorities are a touchy subject with libertarians since there are like six of you total nowadays.
    - ttoinou 8y ago
      I agree with the first sentence. The rest of it is a personal attack, please read the guidelines and respect rules of places you make use of https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - java_script 8y ago
        Thank you for the constructive feedback. I have some to offer as well. This is you: https://i.imgur.com/jPyEBOD.jpg https://i.imgur.com/jPyEBOD.jpg
        ttoinou 8y ago
        Very mature, thanks for passing by and trying to change my opinion
        dang 8y ago
        That is so... zany that I'm not going to ban you for it, plus it actually took a bit of work to make. But come on.
CydeWeys 8y ago
I'm not following this argument. So, because the world used to terrible centuries ago, and still is in some undeveloped or wartorn nations, we should be OK with it continuing to be terrible here in one of the richest nations in the world, even though it doesn't have to be?
- ttoinou 8y ago
  The argument is 1) there is no common definition of what is acceptable, globally it depends on our current living standard hence ultimately the society's level of development 2) on an individual level some would not make the same choices as you so it is ridiculous for you to make judgments on behalf of others 3) if we had implemented those kind of laws earlier, either everybody was forbidden of improving its conditions and freely shop for employers, there would have been enormous inflation (see Venezuela), or the laws wouldn't have been followed at all (most probable). we should be OK with it continuing to be terrible The fact is that most poor people right now are better off than two centuries ago ; so your adjective "terrible" is relative. In 200 years from now, maybe not having its own personal spaceship will be deemed "terrible" by some ;)
  - hannasanarion 8y ago
    >if we had implemented those kind of laws earlier, either everybody was forbidden of improving its conditions and freely shop for employers, there would have been enormous inflation (see Venezuela), 99% sure Venezuela's inflation problems come more from the fact that the president-dictator takes monetary policy advice from a ghost-parrot, and not as much from implementing occupational safety standards that have been normal in North America and Europe for a century.
    - ttoinou 8y ago
      Inflation can come from different factor ;I was not saying that Venezuela had gone down that precise path. Sorry I wasn't more clear. Anyway, if the cost of work becomes overnight at minimum 1 million USD per month, what do you think would happen ?
    - 8y ago
TheCoelacanth 8y ago
The voluntary interaction argument falls apart in the presence of a labor monopsony.
- ttoinou 8y ago
  It's not a full monopsony, there's often choice. And increasing minimum wage increases their monopsony power because it favors big companies that can afford it (here, Amazon).

exabrial 8y ago

The point about minimum wage is to prevent labor abuse in crappy week conditions by making sure people are just expensive enough to take their safety seriously.

ttoinou 8y ago
Do you prefer people out of jobs without being able to sustain their self rather than people taking jobs that you judge yourself are bad for them ?
- exabrial 8y ago
  False dichotomy. I prefer to let people run their own lives instead of dictating it to them.
  - ttoinou 8y ago
    Being able to run its own life and not being able to choose its employer(s) seem contradictory to me
    - Frondo 8y ago
      Anyone can choose their employer, it's the employer who can't pay less than some amount we as a society deem is a necessary minimum. If anyone's going to have their freedom restrained, let's let it be the folks running businesses, hiring and firing, etc. They already hold more cards.

bhupy 8y ago

> If you can't pay a basic living wage, for fair hours, in safe conditions, with necessary medical benefits, then you don't have a job to offer. Why not let the employees decide if the job is worth taking? If there exists people willing to voluntarily take a job given its wage/conditions, you have a job to offer.

codedokode 8y ago
This will lead to worsening conditions. For example, a person who lives with parents and doesn't pay any rent can work for significantly lower salary than the one who lives alone. For him even $1/hour is better than getting $0 sitting at home. Or immigrants who live 8 people in a room will be happy to work for a lower pay. The number of available jobs is limited. So people with higher demands, especially people with kids, will have a tough choice: either stay unemployed or live 8 people in a room too.
- civilian 8y ago
  The number of available jobs is _not_ limited, it's a supply and demand curve! An employer doesn't just have X jobs to fill a business. They have some number of tasks to do, and there's always more they could be doing. If they have the option of hiring some people at $5/hr and some at $10/hr, the boss can figure out how to get at least $5/hr in value out of the cheaper people he hires. I think the person living with parents is a bad example too. $1/hr is nothing, and it'd probably just be better for that person to not have a job at all. Sometimes doing nothing is better than having a job that crappy.
  - codedokode 8y ago
    $1/hour is not nothing. If you work full month you get $160 which is more than $0 that you get playing games all day long (also you spend less on an electicity bill). So it is more beneficial than doing nothing. In a market without minimun wage you'll have to compete against such people for a job.
- bhupy 8y ago
  This sounds like a welfare problem and not a wage problem. If the market drives down the cost of labor, that's good for everyone. If there exists people whose skillsets aren't sufficient to maintain some minimum standard of living, we ought to give them welfare, either in the form of direct money or "free" goods/services.

driverdan 8y ago

> If you can't pay a basic living wage Stop right there. What about people who don't need a basic living wage, like students who still live with their parents? Why should they be pushed out of the market? I worked in high school, starting when I was 16. It was minimum wage. Without that job I wouldn't have been able to afford a car (necessary where I lived), travel to Greece and Italy, and have my own spending money. I also gained a lot of real world experience. Employers should pay what the position is worth. Why should people like you have the right to tell people like me that we can't willingly work?

HappyRobot 8y ago
> What about people who don't need a basic living wage, like students who still live with their parents? Why should they be pushed out of the market? Part time work. You can work 15-25 hours a week at the higher minimum wage while having time to study or deal with other things. A proper minimum wage should be the amount for a worker to live on after working 40 hours a week. If an employee can not make enough to live in that area (after working for 40 hours), the employer should not be there and is taking advantage of the employees.
czep 8y ago
You raise an interesting point, but I am honestly more concerned with people who would otherwise starve or be homeless rather than students who would not be able to backpack around Europe for a summer. Minimum wage (and other worker protections) are aimed at protecting those who literally have no other options. > Why should people like you have the right to tell people like me that we can't willingly work? This isn't personal, I as a member of this society have a right to make my point that the powerful shouldn't exploit the powerless. Not that I'm calling you a trust fund kid, but this is the same argument you hear from people who are sitting on inherited wealth, and appeal to "natural rights" to keep the evil tax man from taking anything away from what is rightfully theirs. Rightfully theirs, by birth alone, mind you. Think for a minute about the opposite end of the spectrum, people born into abject poverty. They have a right to a dignified life, with a job that pays them enough to survive, rather than having to beg for whatever Johnny Moneybags decides to toss into the street from the window of his Rolls.

merpnderp 8y ago

If someone is willing to work for $5/hour, I can't pay them $5/hour, even if that's all I can afford. Not all jobs should have to pay a basic living wage for two reasons. Not all jobs create enough wealth to justify that wage, and there are lots of people looking for side work, or just a bit of extra cash, and aren't relying upon this type of job for their living. A 12 year old running a paper delivery route on their bike doesn't need $15/hour and isn't creating $15/hour in wealth, yet the kid and the employer would be happy to agree on some lesser amount.

sigzero 8y ago

> If you can't pay a basic living wage, for fair hours, in safe conditions, with necessary medical benefits, then you don't have a job to offer. That is so incredibly incorrect.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

kazinator 8y ago

> But if you can't pay the minimum, then you didn't really have a job to offer in the first place! Which minimum? Today's minimum, or yesterday's? > But it is disingenuous to suggest that just because there are people who would take such jobs, that our economy should allow employers to get away with it. How is it disingenuous if someone says such a thing and honestly means every word of it?