6 ms·

Or maybe it will increase unemployment and will increase the inflation. Why stop at $15? Let's make it $50/hr, make everyone "rich".

jacquesm 8y ago
There is a difference between everybody being 'rich' and simply paying a living wage. Note how Ford got as big as it was in part not just because he made a damn good automobile but because he paid his employees a wage large enough that they could afford a car. A couple of billionaires less and a higher standard of living for the masses is a good thing.
- bufferoverflow 8y ago
  Define "living wage". Please be specific, no vague dancing around.
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    Living wage: a wage sufficiently high that after paying taxes there is still enough left over for small family or individual to live off when all normal expenses are accounted for based on a workweek no longer than 40 hours in total. That works out to $2400 gross per month (so before taxes) which if you can't recoup it from the work input says more about the company you are working for and their inability to capture value. Keep in mind that raising the wage across the bar will increase inflation but will level the wage disparity between 'smart' work and 'dumb' work.
    - kgwgk 8y ago
      > small family or individual What is it, then? Small family or individual? (Edit: sorry for the annoyance. I just tried to understand how did you work out that the right number is $2400 with such precision. Surely that's the right number everywhere in the US, as well...)
      - jacquesm 8y ago
        What is a little bit of money for a small family - but still a living wage - is going to be a bit more for an individual. Some countries make up the difference by giving parents of children some money each month. So that the employers do not have to take the family situation of the people they employ into account. Np. As for the $2400, $15/hour * 40 * 4 is close enough, and that seems to work based on the salaries of a number of people that I am familiar with. Working two jobs at $7/hour should not be a requirement to make ends meet. And that's another way in which the low minimum wage hurts employment: people working two shifts because they have to.
    - bufferoverflow 8y ago
      That definition is VERY vague. I asked you to be specific. How many people? What does "live off" include SPECIFICALLY? What are "normal expenses"? I'm quite certain one can survive on zero dollars, so I assume you're talking about something else. But I don't get what. The $2400 number is completely made up, it's not even geography-specific. It's a lot in Indiana suburbs and it's barely anything in SF.
      - jacquesm 8y ago
        You're shouting and I have a feeling that no matter what gets written here it will not satisfy you, so game over.
        bufferoverflow 8y ago
        An actual answer would satisfy me. But I doubt it will be provided. That's the whole reason for using vague terms like "living wage".
        jacquesm 8y ago
        I have given you a definition and a number that +- 20% satisfies all of the US demographic data that I have my disposal, if you're looking for an essay complete with citations you're going to have to line up behind the paying customers. You started this thread in bad faith ('and no dancing around') and went to worse from there.
        dang 8y ago
        Would you please not argue aggressively like this on HN? It breaks the civility rule. Same for https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18121850 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18121850. There's no need to be rude. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - HeroOfAges 8y ago
      Have you given any thought to how wide the gap between "smart" work and "dumb" work should be? Who should decide such a thing? If someone spent their youth doing drugs and having children out of wedlock do they really deserve to earn a salary within say 10% of someone that spent their youth working to gain the skills and experience necessary to be a doctor or lawyer? Just because the outcomes need to be more equal?
      - jacquesm 8y ago
        > Have you given any thought to how wide the gap between "smart" work and "dumb" work should be? Large enough to stimulate people to learn, small enough that those working hard do not end up wearing out their bodies before their pension, end up on the streets or dead. > If someone spent their youth doing drugs and having children out of wedlock do they really deserve to earn a salary within say 10% of someone that spent their youth working to gain the skills and experience necessary to be a doctor or lawyer? Do you mean to imply that there are no doctors or lawyers with children out of wedlock or on drugs? > Just because the outcomes need to be more equal? I would avoid the word equal, I would use the word fair.
        walshemj 8y ago
        Your buying into the argument people who are poor deserve it some how. That's a similar argument used against the 8 hour day - the working classes would waste this extra new time on drink and enjoying themselves.
        jacquesm 8y ago
        > Your buying into the argument people who are poor deserve it some how. Not sure how you got that impression. If you thought that the 'large enough to stimulate people to learn' is a factor in that: I was thinking of kids looking around them seeing zero advantage of having an education might not be incentivized enough to acquire one.
  - tialaramex 8y ago
    Not your OP but... In the UK there's a foundation that exists to work out what would a fair living wage, to promote this idea to businesses (getting them to commit to pay this to all workers even though the legal minimum is lower) and to make sure that when media people have your question they've got somebody who can confidently provide quotes/ appear on TV/ whatever to explain. This was sufficiently successful that the government tried to rebrand their arbitrarily chosen (55% of median earnings) minimum wage as a "National Living Wage" but to their annoyance people continue to refer to the foundation's numbers which you know, are based on evidence. The Living Wage Foundation uses a "basket" system like economists measuring inflation. For example they imagine that a person should rent somewhere to live, so they go find out how much it would typically cost to rent somewhere a person could live in various parts of the country. They figure you will want food, so they work out a set of groceries you might buy, and so on. Is it possible to live on less? Yes, and it so happens that I do even though I'm fairly wealthy. But it's very obvious that even small changes in my lifestyle would significantly increase my spending, and many of my choices just aren't open to people who aren't wealthy. For example I spend very little on housing, because I own my home outright. But obviously people trying to get a minimum wage cleaning job don't own a house!
  - mmmbetternot 8y ago
    a living wage is the minimum a person needs to survive without severe and persistent food and housing insecurity. It's the amount one would spend on groceries, rent, utilities, transportation, childcare, and sometimes healthcare. It does not include luxuries such as meals at restaurants, entertainment, savings accounts, retirement funds, investments, or vacations. MIT has a great living wage calculator for the US. Their definition of living wage is in the about section. http://livingwage.mit.edu/ http://livingwage.mit.edu/
- jopsen 8y ago
  I see no reason this is going to cause fewer billionaires. Doesn't that assume it's all a zero sum game? Could you elaborate..
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    Probably it won't but there is a small risk that some people will due to round-off errors end up just below the billionaire line of they start paying their employees a half decent wage. Or it might take some people a bit longer to get there. In the long run it is irrelevant.
konschubert 8y ago
I know you're joking. But it's not true that rising the minimum wage would immediately be cancelled out by inflation. That would be true only if everybody was earning minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage from 5 to 50 dollars is unlikely to cause a 10x inflation, it more likely would cause a 3x or 5x inflation. The poor would have more and the rich would have less. It would likely reduce the spread of wealth in the society, improve social cohesion and in general may turn out to be a good thing.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  High minimum wage doesn't hurt the "rich" it hurts everyone who's making just more than minimum all the way to the upper middle class because their cost of living either increases or their standard of living decreases. The "rich" are rich enough that it's just a drop in the bucket. Edit: I don't mean to say that minimum wage isn't worthwhile, just that framing it in terms of a rich to poor wealth transfer is somewhat dishonest.
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    Well, if that reasoning were true we should just get rid of the minimum wage, surely that will lead to an increase in the standard of living and a decrease in the cost of living. Really, some of the stuff you read on HN is just mind-boggling. In spite of the gig economy trying hard to erase decades of stability for millions of people even the smallest attempt at reductio-ad-absurdum would show that there is an optimimum somewhere and that there is absolutely no law of nature that dictates that that optimum lies at $2.75, $7, $15 or anywhere in particular. Whatever you make the minimum, there will always be people who earn just a bit more and of course it will lead to some inflation but the end result will be a higher standard of living for those for whom the change is the most important. For all the laughter about the EU from the US when it comes to social security I'd like to point out that Amazon already operates here and has to pay the local minimum wage and that consumers are still buying their products.
    - GrumpiNerd 8y ago
      Being part of the gig economy has brought me the best income I've ever had. And a flexible schedule so I get plenty of time with my kid. If I was still forced to look for a 9-5 based on traditional hiring practices I'd be making much less and miserable.

jacquesm 8y ago

There is a difference between everybody being 'rich' and simply paying a living wage. Note how Ford got as big as it was in part not just because he made a damn good automobile but because he paid his employees a wage large enough that they could afford a car. A couple of billionaires less and a higher standard of living for the masses is a good thing.

bufferoverflow 8y ago
Define "living wage". Please be specific, no vague dancing around.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  Living wage: a wage sufficiently high that after paying taxes there is still enough left over for small family or individual to live off when all normal expenses are accounted for based on a workweek no longer than 40 hours in total. That works out to $2400 gross per month (so before taxes) which if you can't recoup it from the work input says more about the company you are working for and their inability to capture value. Keep in mind that raising the wage across the bar will increase inflation but will level the wage disparity between 'smart' work and 'dumb' work.
  - kgwgk 8y ago
    > small family or individual What is it, then? Small family or individual? (Edit: sorry for the annoyance. I just tried to understand how did you work out that the right number is $2400 with such precision. Surely that's the right number everywhere in the US, as well...)
    - jacquesm 8y ago
      What is a little bit of money for a small family - but still a living wage - is going to be a bit more for an individual. Some countries make up the difference by giving parents of children some money each month. So that the employers do not have to take the family situation of the people they employ into account. Np. As for the $2400, $15/hour * 40 * 4 is close enough, and that seems to work based on the salaries of a number of people that I am familiar with. Working two jobs at $7/hour should not be a requirement to make ends meet. And that's another way in which the low minimum wage hurts employment: people working two shifts because they have to.
  - bufferoverflow 8y ago
    That definition is VERY vague. I asked you to be specific. How many people? What does "live off" include SPECIFICALLY? What are "normal expenses"? I'm quite certain one can survive on zero dollars, so I assume you're talking about something else. But I don't get what. The $2400 number is completely made up, it's not even geography-specific. It's a lot in Indiana suburbs and it's barely anything in SF.
    - jacquesm 8y ago
      You're shouting and I have a feeling that no matter what gets written here it will not satisfy you, so game over.
      - bufferoverflow 8y ago
        An actual answer would satisfy me. But I doubt it will be provided. That's the whole reason for using vague terms like "living wage".
        jacquesm 8y ago
        I have given you a definition and a number that +- 20% satisfies all of the US demographic data that I have my disposal, if you're looking for an essay complete with citations you're going to have to line up behind the paying customers. You started this thread in bad faith ('and no dancing around') and went to worse from there.
        dang 8y ago
        Would you please not argue aggressively like this on HN? It breaks the civility rule. Same for https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18121850 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18121850. There's no need to be rude. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - HeroOfAges 8y ago
    Have you given any thought to how wide the gap between "smart" work and "dumb" work should be? Who should decide such a thing? If someone spent their youth doing drugs and having children out of wedlock do they really deserve to earn a salary within say 10% of someone that spent their youth working to gain the skills and experience necessary to be a doctor or lawyer? Just because the outcomes need to be more equal?
    - jacquesm 8y ago
      > Have you given any thought to how wide the gap between "smart" work and "dumb" work should be? Large enough to stimulate people to learn, small enough that those working hard do not end up wearing out their bodies before their pension, end up on the streets or dead. > If someone spent their youth doing drugs and having children out of wedlock do they really deserve to earn a salary within say 10% of someone that spent their youth working to gain the skills and experience necessary to be a doctor or lawyer? Do you mean to imply that there are no doctors or lawyers with children out of wedlock or on drugs? > Just because the outcomes need to be more equal? I would avoid the word equal, I would use the word fair.
      - walshemj 8y ago
        Your buying into the argument people who are poor deserve it some how. That's a similar argument used against the 8 hour day - the working classes would waste this extra new time on drink and enjoying themselves.
        jacquesm 8y ago
        > Your buying into the argument people who are poor deserve it some how. Not sure how you got that impression. If you thought that the 'large enough to stimulate people to learn' is a factor in that: I was thinking of kids looking around them seeing zero advantage of having an education might not be incentivized enough to acquire one.
- tialaramex 8y ago
  Not your OP but... In the UK there's a foundation that exists to work out what would a fair living wage, to promote this idea to businesses (getting them to commit to pay this to all workers even though the legal minimum is lower) and to make sure that when media people have your question they've got somebody who can confidently provide quotes/ appear on TV/ whatever to explain. This was sufficiently successful that the government tried to rebrand their arbitrarily chosen (55% of median earnings) minimum wage as a "National Living Wage" but to their annoyance people continue to refer to the foundation's numbers which you know, are based on evidence. The Living Wage Foundation uses a "basket" system like economists measuring inflation. For example they imagine that a person should rent somewhere to live, so they go find out how much it would typically cost to rent somewhere a person could live in various parts of the country. They figure you will want food, so they work out a set of groceries you might buy, and so on. Is it possible to live on less? Yes, and it so happens that I do even though I'm fairly wealthy. But it's very obvious that even small changes in my lifestyle would significantly increase my spending, and many of my choices just aren't open to people who aren't wealthy. For example I spend very little on housing, because I own my home outright. But obviously people trying to get a minimum wage cleaning job don't own a house!
- mmmbetternot 8y ago
  a living wage is the minimum a person needs to survive without severe and persistent food and housing insecurity. It's the amount one would spend on groceries, rent, utilities, transportation, childcare, and sometimes healthcare. It does not include luxuries such as meals at restaurants, entertainment, savings accounts, retirement funds, investments, or vacations. MIT has a great living wage calculator for the US. Their definition of living wage is in the about section. http://livingwage.mit.edu/ http://livingwage.mit.edu/
jopsen 8y ago
I see no reason this is going to cause fewer billionaires. Doesn't that assume it's all a zero sum game? Could you elaborate..
- jacquesm 8y ago
  Probably it won't but there is a small risk that some people will due to round-off errors end up just below the billionaire line of they start paying their employees a half decent wage. Or it might take some people a bit longer to get there. In the long run it is irrelevant.

konschubert 8y ago

I know you're joking. But it's not true that rising the minimum wage would immediately be cancelled out by inflation. That would be true only if everybody was earning minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage from 5 to 50 dollars is unlikely to cause a 10x inflation, it more likely would cause a 3x or 5x inflation. The poor would have more and the rich would have less. It would likely reduce the spread of wealth in the society, improve social cohesion and in general may turn out to be a good thing.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
High minimum wage doesn't hurt the "rich" it hurts everyone who's making just more than minimum all the way to the upper middle class because their cost of living either increases or their standard of living decreases. The "rich" are rich enough that it's just a drop in the bucket. Edit: I don't mean to say that minimum wage isn't worthwhile, just that framing it in terms of a rich to poor wealth transfer is somewhat dishonest.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  Well, if that reasoning were true we should just get rid of the minimum wage, surely that will lead to an increase in the standard of living and a decrease in the cost of living. Really, some of the stuff you read on HN is just mind-boggling. In spite of the gig economy trying hard to erase decades of stability for millions of people even the smallest attempt at reductio-ad-absurdum would show that there is an optimimum somewhere and that there is absolutely no law of nature that dictates that that optimum lies at $2.75, $7, $15 or anywhere in particular. Whatever you make the minimum, there will always be people who earn just a bit more and of course it will lead to some inflation but the end result will be a higher standard of living for those for whom the change is the most important. For all the laughter about the EU from the US when it comes to social security I'd like to point out that Amazon already operates here and has to pay the local minimum wage and that consumers are still buying their products.
  - GrumpiNerd 8y ago
    Being part of the gig economy has brought me the best income I've ever had. And a flexible schedule so I get plenty of time with my kid. If I was still forced to look for a 9-5 based on traditional hiring practices I'd be making much less and miserable.