4 ms·

> Why is passing on the cost of transportation [minimum wages] to the consumer considered the optimum solution? I don't, but I think it's more politically achi

> Why is passing on the cost of transportation [minimum wages] to the consumer considered the optimum solution? I don't, but I think it's more politically achievable and a lot more optimal than the status quo. > What we're clearly seeing is a well functioning market driving down the cost of driver labor to the minimum possible price ....This is good for consumers....If the problem is that some of these drivers aren't making enough to survive, then wouldn't a more optimum solution be to simply give them a little bit of money? One concern I have with ideas like that is the policy could end up just being a subsidy to business owners, since they could turn around and pocket much of their existing labor costs (at least for low-wage workers) by passing that responsibility to the government.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> One concern I have with ideas like that is the policy could end up just being a subsidy to business owners, since they could turn around and pocket much of their existing labor costs (at least for low-wage workers) by passing that responsibility to the government. They only get to pocket the money if they lack effective competition. Uber can't charge higher fares while paying lower wages and not expect Lyft or someone else to eat their lunch.
bhupy 7y ago
> I think it's more politically achievable and a lot more optimal than the status quo. That's not necessarily true, EITC is an existing program. "Increase EITC" requires just as much political will as "Increase the minimum wage". > One concern I have with ideas like that is the policy could end up just being a subsidy to business owners, since they could turn around and pocket much of their existing labor costs (at least for low-wage workers) by passing that responsibility to the government. You could apply this argument against any form of welfare. Why should the government provide health insurance? Doing so allows employers to shirk their responsibility to provide health insurance to their workers. At the end of the day, we agree as a society that there's a minimum standard of living that everyone ought to enjoy, and welfare is our way of ensuring that. That there are some professions (like rideshare drivers) in which the pay is too low to maintain a minimum standard of living sounds like a welfare problem.
- CharlesColeman 7y ago
  > You could apply this argument against any form of welfare. Only welfare that you can collect while employed. I personally feel that the welfare costs incurred by any employed person should be billed back to their employer (except in some special cases like otherwise unemployable disabled people). > That there are some professions (like rideshare drivers) in which the pay is too low to maintain a minimum standard of living sounds like a welfare problem. It is, though I think welfare solutions become taxation problems, and the people who should pay the most tax also those who are most sophisticated at avoiding it.
  - bhupy 7y ago
    > Only welfare that you can collect while employed. You're right, and I'd personally advocate for removing the employment requirement for the EITC (closer to a negative income tax or even a UBI), but expanding the EITC is more politically tenable in the near term, and becomes a stepping stone to achieve the latter. > the people who should pay the most tax also those who are most sophisticated at avoiding it Are you suggesting that welfare and progressive taxation don't work? Or are you arguing that regressive taxes are more optimum/more effective?
    - CharlesColeman 7y ago
      > Or are you arguing that regressive taxes are more optimum/more effective? We're not talking about regressive taxes, but the effects of regulation on prices. My view on this narrow slice of policy is that it's better that private employers bear the full cost of supporting an employee at a reasonable standard of living. Welfare's fine for those who are unemployed or disabled (and maybe those who are in a time-limited transition period), but it shouldn't be a supplement to wages except in limited cases.
      - bhupy 7y ago
        > My view on this narrow slice of policy is that it's better that private employers bear the full cost of supporting an employee at a reasonable standard of living But employers just pass that cost onto the consumer. This results in, in effect, a regressive tax, because these higher prices are paid by the rich and the poor alike. In contrast, using welfare to ensure that these workers don't go hungry ensures that the workers essentially end up with the same amount of money as they would have with the wage floor, but having the rich pay for it disproportionately (via progressive income/capital gains taxes).

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

> One concern I have with ideas like that is the policy could end up just being a subsidy to business owners, since they could turn around and pocket much of their existing labor costs (at least for low-wage workers) by passing that responsibility to the government. They only get to pocket the money if they lack effective competition. Uber can't charge higher fares while paying lower wages and not expect Lyft or someone else to eat their lunch.

bhupy 7y ago

> I think it's more politically achievable and a lot more optimal than the status quo. That's not necessarily true, EITC is an existing program. "Increase EITC" requires just as much political will as "Increase the minimum wage". > One concern I have with ideas like that is the policy could end up just being a subsidy to business owners, since they could turn around and pocket much of their existing labor costs (at least for low-wage workers) by passing that responsibility to the government. You could apply this argument against any form of welfare. Why should the government provide health insurance? Doing so allows employers to shirk their responsibility to provide health insurance to their workers. At the end of the day, we agree as a society that there's a minimum standard of living that everyone ought to enjoy, and welfare is our way of ensuring that. That there are some professions (like rideshare drivers) in which the pay is too low to maintain a minimum standard of living sounds like a welfare problem.

CharlesColeman 7y ago
> You could apply this argument against any form of welfare. Only welfare that you can collect while employed. I personally feel that the welfare costs incurred by any employed person should be billed back to their employer (except in some special cases like otherwise unemployable disabled people). > That there are some professions (like rideshare drivers) in which the pay is too low to maintain a minimum standard of living sounds like a welfare problem. It is, though I think welfare solutions become taxation problems, and the people who should pay the most tax also those who are most sophisticated at avoiding it.
- bhupy 7y ago
  > Only welfare that you can collect while employed. You're right, and I'd personally advocate for removing the employment requirement for the EITC (closer to a negative income tax or even a UBI), but expanding the EITC is more politically tenable in the near term, and becomes a stepping stone to achieve the latter. > the people who should pay the most tax also those who are most sophisticated at avoiding it Are you suggesting that welfare and progressive taxation don't work? Or are you arguing that regressive taxes are more optimum/more effective?
  - CharlesColeman 7y ago
    > Or are you arguing that regressive taxes are more optimum/more effective? We're not talking about regressive taxes, but the effects of regulation on prices. My view on this narrow slice of policy is that it's better that private employers bear the full cost of supporting an employee at a reasonable standard of living. Welfare's fine for those who are unemployed or disabled (and maybe those who are in a time-limited transition period), but it shouldn't be a supplement to wages except in limited cases.
    - bhupy 7y ago
      > My view on this narrow slice of policy is that it's better that private employers bear the full cost of supporting an employee at a reasonable standard of living But employers just pass that cost onto the consumer. This results in, in effect, a regressive tax, because these higher prices are paid by the rich and the poor alike. In contrast, using welfare to ensure that these workers don't go hungry ensures that the workers essentially end up with the same amount of money as they would have with the wage floor, but having the rich pay for it disproportionately (via progressive income/capital gains taxes).