4 ms·

This is nice, but it's important to realize this headline is not really about minimum wage. The debate about minimum wage, of course, is about how wages should

This is nice, but it's important to realize this headline is not really about minimum wage. The debate about minimum wage, of course, is about how wages should be set by law, not about how much companies choose to pay their employees.

ralusek 8y ago
That debate is simple, though. They shouldn't be set by law, because it removes jobs from the market and disproportionately punishes businesses that rely on low-skill employment. Why is McDonalds morally responsible for rectifying the problem of poverty, but SpaceX and Microsoft are relatively unaffected? And we already know that minimum wage laws simply accelerate us towards the threshold where employees priced out versus automated alternatives. There are also entire industries that could become economically unviable despite the fact that the employer and employee had previously agreed to the terms of the employment arrangement. UBI or infrastructure spending are much more sensible solutions to what is a much broader problem.
- C1sc0cat 8y ago
  The corollary is why should the state (ie tax payers) subsidize Baristas and Fast food workers. Nurses Doctors etc there is an obvious moral incentive.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    You mean like the state through pension funds invest in VC funds that subsidize money losing companies who can then pay high salaries to white collar workers? If companies that can’t be profitable and pay a wage thst you think they deserve shouldn’t exist is kind of a dangerous thing to say on a site supported by a VC company....
    - C1sc0cat 8y ago
      Realy was thinking about the tax credits system in the UK ie benefits paid to low paid workers. And to be blunt if I was a LP / Shareholder in a fund/company ran by PG I absolutely would expect hi to invest in companies that will be profitable and not rely on government subvention to be profitable. I am a small shareholder in PE investment companies both UK, USA and elsewhere.

ralusek 8y ago

That debate is simple, though. They shouldn't be set by law, because it removes jobs from the market and disproportionately punishes businesses that rely on low-skill employment. Why is McDonalds morally responsible for rectifying the problem of poverty, but SpaceX and Microsoft are relatively unaffected? And we already know that minimum wage laws simply accelerate us towards the threshold where employees priced out versus automated alternatives. There are also entire industries that could become economically unviable despite the fact that the employer and employee had previously agreed to the terms of the employment arrangement. UBI or infrastructure spending are much more sensible solutions to what is a much broader problem.

C1sc0cat 8y ago
The corollary is why should the state (ie tax payers) subsidize Baristas and Fast food workers. Nurses Doctors etc there is an obvious moral incentive.
- scarface74 8y ago
  You mean like the state through pension funds invest in VC funds that subsidize money losing companies who can then pay high salaries to white collar workers? If companies that can’t be profitable and pay a wage thst you think they deserve shouldn’t exist is kind of a dangerous thing to say on a site supported by a VC company....
  - C1sc0cat 8y ago
    Realy was thinking about the tax credits system in the UK ie benefits paid to low paid workers. And to be blunt if I was a LP / Shareholder in a fund/company ran by PG I absolutely would expect hi to invest in companies that will be profitable and not rely on government subvention to be profitable. I am a small shareholder in PE investment companies both UK, USA and elsewhere.