3 ms·

Wouldn't that simply result in businesses paying as little as possible, which would then result in the need to tax the businesses harder?

by ahje 7y ago

coldpie 7y ago
Yes. The thing opponents of a living wage don't realize is that the gov't has to make up the gap. The gov't indirectly subsidizes businesses who pay under a living wage, which actually incentivizes them to do so. Enforcing a living wage actually means fewer subsidies and a more efficient and level market.
- AJ007 7y ago
  Is the government indirectly subsidizing businesses, or are they indirectly subsidizing landlords and the lenders to whom the landlords owe debts? For the vast majority of the world, outside of ultra-expensive first world metropolises, $15 an hour is beyond a comfortable living wage.
  - geofft 7y ago
    Is the question whether it's possible to reduce the cost of living / why the cost of living is so high? That's largely because the basic necessities of living (housing, clothing, food, transportation) are needed in roughly the same amount by all people, and don't scale with class/income/wealth. I live in a 1-bedroom apartment and eat about three meals a day and wear jeans that cost about $50. I have friends who make an order of magnitude more and less than I do. They don't live in a 10-bedroom or 0.1-bedroom place, respectively. They don't eat 30 or 0.3 meals a day, respectively, and their meal themselves don't cost ten times more or less - maybe there's a factor of two or three. The ones who make ten times more than I do might occasionally buy $500 jeans, but even they won't wear it for everyday use, and the ones who make ten times less generally don't buy $5 jeans either. So, demand is roughly the same from everyone / doesn't scale very much, and the rich can afford to pay quite a bit more. So a market that has rich people in it will have a higher cost of living. If you want to stop this, the obvious solution is to prevent income inequality (in all its forms - Paul Graham points out, correctly, that this would require us to rethink the very idea of for-profit unicorns - see https://twitter.com/paulg/status/886953410356011008 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/886953410356011008 and https://twitter.com/paulg/status/645343476662427648 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/645343476662427648). Useful tools include extremely high wealth and income taxes. (And, as someone who by any objective standard makes a lot of money, this is why I'm personally in favor of my own marginal tax bracket being 90% or higher - because it means that people who make even more money than I do can't as trivially outbid me for housing, etc.)
- navigatesol 7y ago
  >Enforcing a living wage actually means fewer subsidies and a more efficient and level market. This is some real galaxy-brain level thinking. Enforcing a minimum wage is a more efficient market.

Wouldn't that simply result in businesses paying as little as possible, which would then result in the need to tax the businesses harder?

by ahje 7y ago

Wouldn't that simply result in businesses paying as little as possible, which would then result in the need to tax the businesses harder?

coldpie 7y ago

Yes. The thing opponents of a living wage don't realize is that the gov't has to make up the gap. The gov't indirectly subsidizes businesses who pay under a living wage, which actually incentivizes them to do so. Enforcing a living wage actually means fewer subsidies and a more efficient and level market.

AJ007 7y ago
Is the government indirectly subsidizing businesses, or are they indirectly subsidizing landlords and the lenders to whom the landlords owe debts? For the vast majority of the world, outside of ultra-expensive first world metropolises, $15 an hour is beyond a comfortable living wage.
- geofft 7y ago
  Is the question whether it's possible to reduce the cost of living / why the cost of living is so high? That's largely because the basic necessities of living (housing, clothing, food, transportation) are needed in roughly the same amount by all people, and don't scale with class/income/wealth. I live in a 1-bedroom apartment and eat about three meals a day and wear jeans that cost about $50. I have friends who make an order of magnitude more and less than I do. They don't live in a 10-bedroom or 0.1-bedroom place, respectively. They don't eat 30 or 0.3 meals a day, respectively, and their meal themselves don't cost ten times more or less - maybe there's a factor of two or three. The ones who make ten times more than I do might occasionally buy $500 jeans, but even they won't wear it for everyday use, and the ones who make ten times less generally don't buy $5 jeans either. So, demand is roughly the same from everyone / doesn't scale very much, and the rich can afford to pay quite a bit more. So a market that has rich people in it will have a higher cost of living. If you want to stop this, the obvious solution is to prevent income inequality (in all its forms - Paul Graham points out, correctly, that this would require us to rethink the very idea of for-profit unicorns - see https://twitter.com/paulg/status/886953410356011008 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/886953410356011008 and https://twitter.com/paulg/status/645343476662427648 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/645343476662427648). Useful tools include extremely high wealth and income taxes. (And, as someone who by any objective standard makes a lot of money, this is why I'm personally in favor of my own marginal tax bracket being 90% or higher - because it means that people who make even more money than I do can't as trivially outbid me for housing, etc.)
navigatesol 7y ago
>Enforcing a living wage actually means fewer subsidies and a more efficient and level market. This is some real galaxy-brain level thinking. Enforcing a minimum wage is a more efficient market.