3 ms·

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 o

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.

3 ms·

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 o

by codedokode 8y ago

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.