4 ms·

> It would be a fairly significant unintended consequence if setting the national minimum wage to $15 were to actually eliminate entire job categories like frui

> It would be a fairly significant unintended consequence if setting the national minimum wage to $15 were to actually eliminate entire job categories like fruit picker and burger flipper, due to pushing the minimum cost of labor above the cost of automating the role. This is not an unintended consequence, IMO. An unintended consequence is typically something that is not foreseeable, but the conversion of jobs to automation after minimum wage increases is not unforeseeable. You'd learn about that in an entry-level economics course.

theptip 8y ago
> An unintended consequence is typically something that is not foreseeable I'm using the definition of "an unintended consequence is a consequence that was not intended". Whether it was foreseeable is a different matter. Put another way, I believe that the intention of most people advocating a $15/h minimum wage is to increase the welfare of those currently earning sub-$15/h wages, not to eradicate their jobs. Therefore if job eradication is the consequence of the policy under discussion, then it is an unintended consequence for those advocates.
- grandmczeb 8y ago
  Not to derail the conversation too far, but there are actually cases where a minimum wage has been used as a tool to eliminate certain jobs. For example, a big sticking point of the new NAFTA deal was the requirement that exported cars be manufactured in a factory with a $16/hr wage floor, with goal of making exports from Mexico uncompetitive and move some of those manufacturing jobs to the US. Obviously, I don't think that's the common policy goal though.
Not1Hacker 8y ago
I'd posit that by definition an unintended consequence is one that wasn't intended. An unforeseen consequence would be on that was not foreseen. That's why we have those words. You could play catch indoors and accidentally knock over a lamp. You absolutely foresaw that as a potential outcome, but you didn't intend for it to happen.
MRD85 8y ago
If cheaper automation drives down these wages far enough then it won't matter if the people have a job or not. $3 per hour would be similar to no job.

theptip 8y ago

> An unintended consequence is typically something that is not foreseeable I'm using the definition of "an unintended consequence is a consequence that was not intended". Whether it was foreseeable is a different matter. Put another way, I believe that the intention of most people advocating a $15/h minimum wage is to increase the welfare of those currently earning sub-$15/h wages, not to eradicate their jobs. Therefore if job eradication is the consequence of the policy under discussion, then it is an unintended consequence for those advocates.

grandmczeb 8y ago
Not to derail the conversation too far, but there are actually cases where a minimum wage has been used as a tool to eliminate certain jobs. For example, a big sticking point of the new NAFTA deal was the requirement that exported cars be manufactured in a factory with a $16/hr wage floor, with goal of making exports from Mexico uncompetitive and move some of those manufacturing jobs to the US. Obviously, I don't think that's the common policy goal though.

Not1Hacker 8y ago

I'd posit that by definition an unintended consequence is one that wasn't intended. An unforeseen consequence would be on that was not foreseen. That's why we have those words. You could play catch indoors and accidentally knock over a lamp. You absolutely foresaw that as a potential outcome, but you didn't intend for it to happen.

MRD85 8y ago

If cheaper automation drives down these wages far enough then it won't matter if the people have a job or not. $3 per hour would be similar to no job.