3 ms·

>>because of repeated public outrage at the abuses their lack engendered. I recommend anyone who holds this view to read at least one book written by Thomas So

>>because of repeated public outrage at the abuses their lack engendered. I recommend anyone who holds this view to read at least one book written by Thomas Sowell. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed#Criticisms_of_the_book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed#Criticisms... Repeated public outrage: cars are becoming less safe. Economist: There is a tradeoff between safety and affordability, and making cars safer means less poor people can actually afford to buy them. In turn, this makes transportation even harder for them, which in turn means they will have fewer chances to improve their lives. Repeated public outrage: lack of minimum wage will cause more exploitation. Economist: Minimum wage destroys job opportunities for low skilled workers, who are already heavily marginalized in society. And once they are out of the job market, it becomes even harder for them to return to it.

kiba 7y ago
The root problem of transportation is governments favoring roads over mass transits and bicycles, making cars a requirement for living in the country as opposed to optional, not safety regulations of motor vehicles.
TuringTest 7y ago
> Minimum wage destroys job opportunities for low skilled workers, who are already heavily marginalized in society. And once they are out of the job market, it becomes even harder for them to return to it. That's why you create unemployment benefit, preferably in a way that does not discourage going back to work. This way, works with starvation wages don't exist, and low-skilled workers have a chance to prepare for their next job (and even to be a bit picky). In my view this improves the job market much better than a race to the bottom in working conditions and salaries.
- bubble_talk 7y ago
  >>preferably in a way that does not discourage going back to work. Isn't this much easier said than done? Where will you cap the unemployment benefits so people are not discouraged? How do you come up with the number? How do you plan to verify the effect of your suggested cap?
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  > That's why you create unemployment benefit, preferably in a way that does not discourage going back to work. Alternatively you could subsidise low wage employment via a wage subsidy like the earned income tax credit. That way you get more people in work as opposed to fewer and those people develop skills and professional networks which will allow the recipients to escape low wage work in time.
- dgzl 7y ago
  I was on unemployment with the state of Michigan last year, and it was a literal nightmare. A few hours into the work day, customer service became backlogged for the entire day with a message saying "we're full" and then hang up on you. Living on the west coast meant I had to get up at 4am to catch the early call. The online portal was an absolute mess in usability and functionality, and nearly every step I took required some "fact finding" requirement, often taking several weeks to resolve. Many times my benefits were delayed, someone's up to a month. It's easily the worse system I've ever used. Raising minimum wage has negative side effects. You can't escape this truth.
mattkrause 7y ago
Is the evidence actually solid for the minimum wage thing? My half-informed impression was that it's not–demand for labor is often surprisingly inelastic. Maybe you can go from 100 to 95 people on an assembly line, but you can't have 0.95 of a person taking orders. Also, increasing someone's salary by $1/hr only costs a few thousand dollars per year (~2000 working hours/year + payroll taxes).

kiba 7y ago

The root problem of transportation is governments favoring roads over mass transits and bicycles, making cars a requirement for living in the country as opposed to optional, not safety regulations of motor vehicles.

TuringTest 7y ago

> Minimum wage destroys job opportunities for low skilled workers, who are already heavily marginalized in society. And once they are out of the job market, it becomes even harder for them to return to it. That's why you create unemployment benefit, preferably in a way that does not discourage going back to work. This way, works with starvation wages don't exist, and low-skilled workers have a chance to prepare for their next job (and even to be a bit picky). In my view this improves the job market much better than a race to the bottom in working conditions and salaries.

bubble_talk 7y ago
>>preferably in a way that does not discourage going back to work. Isn't this much easier said than done? Where will you cap the unemployment benefits so people are not discouraged? How do you come up with the number? How do you plan to verify the effect of your suggested cap?
barry-cotter 7y ago
> That's why you create unemployment benefit, preferably in a way that does not discourage going back to work. Alternatively you could subsidise low wage employment via a wage subsidy like the earned income tax credit. That way you get more people in work as opposed to fewer and those people develop skills and professional networks which will allow the recipients to escape low wage work in time.
dgzl 7y ago
I was on unemployment with the state of Michigan last year, and it was a literal nightmare. A few hours into the work day, customer service became backlogged for the entire day with a message saying "we're full" and then hang up on you. Living on the west coast meant I had to get up at 4am to catch the early call. The online portal was an absolute mess in usability and functionality, and nearly every step I took required some "fact finding" requirement, often taking several weeks to resolve. Many times my benefits were delayed, someone's up to a month. It's easily the worse system I've ever used. Raising minimum wage has negative side effects. You can't escape this truth.

mattkrause 7y ago

Is the evidence actually solid for the minimum wage thing? My half-informed impression was that it's not–demand for labor is often surprisingly inelastic. Maybe you can go from 100 to 95 people on an assembly line, but you can't have 0.95 of a person taking orders. Also, increasing someone's salary by $1/hr only costs a few thousand dollars per year (~2000 working hours/year + payroll taxes).