Seems I’m being judged harshly for that comment. What I’m saying is that the theory is that if you have a competitive market and low transaction costs for switc

Seems I’m being judged harshly for that comment. What I’m saying is that the theory is that if you have a competitive market and low transaction costs for switching, then... The term “transaction costs” is a reflection of the total cost to the employee, including time spent searching, applying, interviewing, potential lost wages if the new start date doesn’t match the end date, even time value for filling out the W-9. All of it. There’s a lot that can be done on the regulatory side to reduce these costs. The really big one is probably health insurance switching costs, particularly if deductibles are getting reset mid-year. So my conclusion is the most effective and economically efficient way to improve the conditions for low skilled workers is to reduce overhead costs and reduce transaction costs for switching jobs as much as possible. Dialing up the legal minimum value proposition of a worker in theory does not help, and can only possibly hurt low skilled employees, if the labor market is competitive and job switching costs are zero (that is to say, in an idealized—not real-world—model).