5 ms·

Still makes it practically illegal to produce less than $15/hr value. Can't produce that much? no work for you. This ensures that, even in the article's revise

Still makes it practically illegal to produce less than $15/hr value. Can't produce that much? no work for you. This ensures that, even in the article's revised view, those who do suffer are those most needy.

olliej 8y ago
I’d love to know how you get to that conclusion.
- qwerty777666555 8y ago
  Looks like you’re not running your business but rather a 9 to 5 office slave
- bognition 8y ago
  Its basic accounting. If you have to pay someone $15/hr, they better be providing at least that much value back to you, otherwise you're running a charity
  - RangerScience 8y ago
    Flip it. If you're gong to pay someone $15/hr, you better have something that needs doing that's worth that much to you. One way to look at employment is that it's your responsibility, as the employer, to know how much a job is worth to you; it's their responsibility to perform that job. If you're having people do something that's not worth what you're paying them? I would say that sounds like you're not running your business very well.
    - qwerty777666555 8y ago
      But there is no “I’m going” but rather “I’m forced to”. So if I don’t have something worth 15/h in my shop should I shut out?
    - acpetrov 8y ago
      And what if you need floors mopped? Now the small business is just getting gouged for that service
    - kgwgk 8y ago
      That’s the point: business won’t have people do something that’s not worth what they have to pay them. That’s what the OP said: “Can't produce that much? no work for you. This ensures that, even in the article's revised view, those who do suffer are those most needy.”
- ctdonath 8y ago
  You pay for work because it produces more value than out costs. Minimum wage requires paying at least $X/hr; some work is simply not worth that much - the employer loses money by paying for it. Example: I'd like to hire someone to sweep floors every day, but a self-emptying Roomba is $949. At just 2 hours a week, and buying a new one each year, the Roomba costs less than $10/hr. At $15/hr minimum wage, I could buy a new one every other week and still save money. I'd rather hire a person who needs work, giving them a leg up to a better paying job, but between the state threatening me if I pay what the work is worth, vs the cost of buying robots to do the job, someone doesn't get a job.
RangerScience 8y ago
If you flip the script, you're saying that an hour of a human's life can be worth less that $15; to paraphrase, it's worth at least an inch of jade. But, seriously, I don't see the issue with ensuring that low-value work isn't worth it for anyone to do, employer or employee. If nothing about a person is worth at least $15/hour, well, that sounds like a serious failing of the society that created that person. From what I've seen, the most needy are the people who's work is worth well more than what they're paid, and who aren't paid enough to begin with.
- acpetrov 8y ago
  But there is work that can be done for under $15/h, if you can do it with automation. Suddenly humans are legally unable to compete with things like McDonald's ordering machines. There are people who would gladly work for less than minimum.
  - lapnitnelav 8y ago
    Automation was always going to be involved sooner or later. This would just increase the rate of adoption. This is what we (as an industry) do, we disrupt and automate things, so I don't understand why you're so concerned about it. And as for work worth less than minimum, then yeah maybe it's not worth doing by a human anyway.
    - gohbgl 8y ago
      > Automation was always going to be involved sooner or later. This would just increase the rate of adoption. The rate of adoption is actually something that matters. If you automate too early you lose money as a business. Also, the minimum wage not only changes the rate of automation but also the things that are automated; namely work that was previously performed by low skilled workers. > And as for work worth less than minimum, then yeah maybe it's not worth doing by a human anyway. What a great insight. Tell the people without jobs that it's not worth for them to work at $14,99 and instead to rely on government handouts for the rest of their lives. For many people an entry level job at low pay was how they started their career.
iciac 8y ago
Wages can certainly track lower than marginal productivity. That's the expectation under monopsonistic labour markets (few or one buyers of labour, many substitutable potential employees). The observed employment effects in response to the minimum wage increase here is pretty well standard theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony#Static_monopsony_in_a_labor_market https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony#Static_monopsony_in_...
kartickv 8y ago
Has the study taken into account the indirect costs over the long term? If labor is costly, the country isn't as competitive compared to others, so jobs are outsourced. This is a diffuse impact, rather than localised — if waiters are required to be paid more, some factory workers may lose their jobs.
- dahart 8y ago
  Are you thinking that factories are currently employing local workers even though they could be outsourcing, that they are currently knowingly paying more than they need to, and that minimum wage increases outside the factory will tip the scales and cause them to change their minds? I’d guess one problem with those assumptions is that you may be right about the impact diffusing. Most workers in Seattle are above the minimum wage, so the total increase in costs of a regional minimum wage increase to a factory that doesn’t employ many or any minimum wage employees is going to be marginal, if even detectable. And if we want to take more things into account and be holistic, we also have to examine the increasing in spending power of the minimum wage workers too. > If labor is costly, the country isn’t as competitive compared to others, so jobs are outsourced. The US minimum wage has been declining in spending power, and is relatively low compared to many other developed countries. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States#/media/File%3AHistory_of_US_federal_minimum_wage_increases.svg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_S... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States#/media/File%3AMinimum_to_Median_Wage_OECD_2016.png https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_S... In the long term, all of our outsourcing is temporary anyway. The economies of the places we’re outsourcing to, like China and India, experience more growth and prices increase the more we outsource. The discrepancy between costs there and costs here is shrinking, and eventually when labor costs catch up, the overseas transportation costs, extra management and quality control costs, turnaround times, time zone offsets and communication and language difficulties, will make outsourcing more expensive than local sourcing. It might take some time, but ultimately outsourcing won’t be much of an economic threat.
DoreenMichele 8y ago
This is why I did piece work when I was extremely ill and homeless. On a good day, I could make around $15 to $20 an hour. On a bad day, I didn't work at all. On a so so day, if I took four hours to do $5 worth of work, making $1.25 an hour, it was $5 more than I otherwise would have had. Earned income was critical to getting my life back. Being able to earn it, even if it meant working below minimum wage, mattered to me.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jahaja 8y ago
As the saying goes: Shame on you if you fool me once, shame on me if you fool me twice. Insisting on supporting politics/policies that create vast inequality then doubling down once those have taken effect is so cunningly cynical that it's almost brilliant because it superficially makes sense.
namlem 8y ago
Only for wage labor. You're still free to contract for a flat rate.

olliej 8y ago

I’d love to know how you get to that conclusion.

qwerty777666555 8y ago
Looks like you’re not running your business but rather a 9 to 5 office slave
bognition 8y ago
Its basic accounting. If you have to pay someone $15/hr, they better be providing at least that much value back to you, otherwise you're running a charity
- RangerScience 8y ago
  Flip it. If you're gong to pay someone $15/hr, you better have something that needs doing that's worth that much to you. One way to look at employment is that it's your responsibility, as the employer, to know how much a job is worth to you; it's their responsibility to perform that job. If you're having people do something that's not worth what you're paying them? I would say that sounds like you're not running your business very well.
  - qwerty777666555 8y ago
    But there is no “I’m going” but rather “I’m forced to”. So if I don’t have something worth 15/h in my shop should I shut out?
  - acpetrov 8y ago
    And what if you need floors mopped? Now the small business is just getting gouged for that service
  - kgwgk 8y ago
    That’s the point: business won’t have people do something that’s not worth what they have to pay them. That’s what the OP said: “Can't produce that much? no work for you. This ensures that, even in the article's revised view, those who do suffer are those most needy.”
ctdonath 8y ago
You pay for work because it produces more value than out costs. Minimum wage requires paying at least $X/hr; some work is simply not worth that much - the employer loses money by paying for it. Example: I'd like to hire someone to sweep floors every day, but a self-emptying Roomba is $949. At just 2 hours a week, and buying a new one each year, the Roomba costs less than $10/hr. At $15/hr minimum wage, I could buy a new one every other week and still save money. I'd rather hire a person who needs work, giving them a leg up to a better paying job, but between the state threatening me if I pay what the work is worth, vs the cost of buying robots to do the job, someone doesn't get a job.

RangerScience 8y ago

If you flip the script, you're saying that an hour of a human's life can be worth less that $15; to paraphrase, it's worth at least an inch of jade. But, seriously, I don't see the issue with ensuring that low-value work isn't worth it for anyone to do, employer or employee. If nothing about a person is worth at least $15/hour, well, that sounds like a serious failing of the society that created that person. From what I've seen, the most needy are the people who's work is worth well more than what they're paid, and who aren't paid enough to begin with.

acpetrov 8y ago
But there is work that can be done for under $15/h, if you can do it with automation. Suddenly humans are legally unable to compete with things like McDonald's ordering machines. There are people who would gladly work for less than minimum.
- lapnitnelav 8y ago
  Automation was always going to be involved sooner or later. This would just increase the rate of adoption. This is what we (as an industry) do, we disrupt and automate things, so I don't understand why you're so concerned about it. And as for work worth less than minimum, then yeah maybe it's not worth doing by a human anyway.
  - gohbgl 8y ago
    > Automation was always going to be involved sooner or later. This would just increase the rate of adoption. The rate of adoption is actually something that matters. If you automate too early you lose money as a business. Also, the minimum wage not only changes the rate of automation but also the things that are automated; namely work that was previously performed by low skilled workers. > And as for work worth less than minimum, then yeah maybe it's not worth doing by a human anyway. What a great insight. Tell the people without jobs that it's not worth for them to work at $14,99 and instead to rely on government handouts for the rest of their lives. For many people an entry level job at low pay was how they started their career.

iciac 8y ago

Wages can certainly track lower than marginal productivity. That's the expectation under monopsonistic labour markets (few or one buyers of labour, many substitutable potential employees). The observed employment effects in response to the minimum wage increase here is pretty well standard theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony#Static_monopsony_in_a_labor_market https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony#Static_monopsony_in_...

kartickv 8y ago

Has the study taken into account the indirect costs over the long term? If labor is costly, the country isn't as competitive compared to others, so jobs are outsourced. This is a diffuse impact, rather than localised — if waiters are required to be paid more, some factory workers may lose their jobs.

dahart 8y ago
Are you thinking that factories are currently employing local workers even though they could be outsourcing, that they are currently knowingly paying more than they need to, and that minimum wage increases outside the factory will tip the scales and cause them to change their minds? I’d guess one problem with those assumptions is that you may be right about the impact diffusing. Most workers in Seattle are above the minimum wage, so the total increase in costs of a regional minimum wage increase to a factory that doesn’t employ many or any minimum wage employees is going to be marginal, if even detectable. And if we want to take more things into account and be holistic, we also have to examine the increasing in spending power of the minimum wage workers too. > If labor is costly, the country isn’t as competitive compared to others, so jobs are outsourced. The US minimum wage has been declining in spending power, and is relatively low compared to many other developed countries. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States#/media/File%3AHistory_of_US_federal_minimum_wage_increases.svg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_S... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States#/media/File%3AMinimum_to_Median_Wage_OECD_2016.png https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_S... In the long term, all of our outsourcing is temporary anyway. The economies of the places we’re outsourcing to, like China and India, experience more growth and prices increase the more we outsource. The discrepancy between costs there and costs here is shrinking, and eventually when labor costs catch up, the overseas transportation costs, extra management and quality control costs, turnaround times, time zone offsets and communication and language difficulties, will make outsourcing more expensive than local sourcing. It might take some time, but ultimately outsourcing won’t be much of an economic threat.

DoreenMichele 8y ago

This is why I did piece work when I was extremely ill and homeless. On a good day, I could make around $15 to $20 an hour. On a bad day, I didn't work at all. On a so so day, if I took four hours to do $5 worth of work, making $1.25 an hour, it was $5 more than I otherwise would have had. Earned income was critical to getting my life back. Being able to earn it, even if it meant working below minimum wage, mattered to me.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

jahaja 8y ago

As the saying goes: Shame on you if you fool me once, shame on me if you fool me twice. Insisting on supporting politics/policies that create vast inequality then doubling down once those have taken effect is so cunningly cynical that it's almost brilliant because it superficially makes sense.

namlem 8y ago

Only for wage labor. You're still free to contract for a flat rate.