2 ms·
Is there anything wrong with this? If a job can't provide for a person at some (philosophically debatable) level, it's not a job worth doing, free market be da
by Damorian 7y ago
Is there anything wrong with this? If a job can't provide for a person at some (philosophically debatable) level, it's not a job worth doing, free market be damned. We could take this to a logical extreme and think of all the jobs that could exist in the absence of a minimum wage and basic human necessity, but the reality is both of these exist. Either it's "worth" more for an employer to pay them more, or automating it becomes more competitive. Both of these drive innovation and advance society. This is why I've supported a higher minimum wage.
- mgraczyk 7y agoYes, there is plenty wrong with this. It is a strange economic intervention that distorts incentives and rarely helps low-wage populations or innovation. Unfortunately there are other options besides "automate" or "pay more". For example, you can pay people under the table, outsource, close down your business (as many restaurants do), change your business model to require less labor (many restaurants in the US are switching from full service to counter-serve). None of these are good for workers.
- dagw 7y agoNot everybody needs a two-bedroom apartment. I mean I was 30 and practically married before I ever had something that big. If you want to argue that every full time job should pay enough to afford a small 1 room apartment within a 30 minute commute, then perhaps I'd agree. But a two bedroom apartment is a straight up luxury in the grand scheme of things and a ridiculous minimum standard to set.