5 ms·

> That's why minimum wage laws and workers rights are important. How do you translate that into numbers? If $15/hr is better than $14/hr, wouldn’t $150/hr be 1

> That's why minimum wage laws and workers rights are important. How do you translate that into numbers? If $15/hr is better than $14/hr, wouldn’t $150/hr be 10x better, and if so, what’s wrong with a comfortable $1,500/hr? I think that’s where economists start to differ.

yarrel 6y ago
How much should workers pay their employers for being able to work, since working is a benefit? We can differ reasonably about how much, surely. A minimum wage is not set in a vacuum, and high numbers that ignore this fact do not illustrate anything useful.
bitdotdash 6y ago
Slippery slope / Straw-man fallacy. One is to do with tying the minimum wage to a livable wage. The other is just large numbers for the sake of trying to win an argument. No one is arguing for $150/hr. The argument is simply that you aught not to be able to run a business and extract a profit if the cost to do so is employing people at such a low wage that they require governmental handouts just to pay rent and eat food. Given that, imaginary large numbers like $150/hr or $1500/hr do not come into play and thus do not need to be considered.
- mrkstu 6y ago
  That is still better for society than not having the economic activity. What exactly is the benefit of wholly depriving the putative worker of a job vs. making up the difference with something like food stamps and Medicaid?
- OCASM 6y ago
  They don't need the handouts. They could for example live in communal spaces and share resources. What exactly is "livable" anyways? Millions of people live every day with only a couple of dollars a day.
  - RockIslandLine 6y ago
    "Millions of people live every day with only a couple of dollars a day." Not in the USA they don't. There is no possible way that an individual could pay for food, clothing, and shelter on that income.
    - OCASM 6y ago
      Sure, different countries have different living standards. That's the point. "Living wage" is an undefined, ever changing concept. Populist to the core.
      - arp242 6y ago
        What a strange argument; you can most certainly quantify living wage for a specific region by looking at the prices in said region.
        OCASM 6y ago
        It's not only the prices but the specifics of what "livable" means. For some it just means the essentials, to others it includes luxuries.
        arp242 6y ago
        No, it's defined fairly clearly.
        ric2b 6y ago
        Where can I see the definition?
adrr 6y ago
Rate that allows the employee to live without government assistance like food stamps and Medicaid. Otherwise the government is just subsidizing the company.
- endtime 6y ago
  To "live" at what standard of living? A smartphone? A recent one? What standard of medical care? What about entertainment? What if someone wants only to eat organic, fair trade food? When you pay for yourself, you're price sensitive and try to choose what makes sense for you. When you're not price sensitive, you run into a major incentive problem. If your life is funded by taxpayers, you have no reason not to argue that basic subsistence requires a lifestyle as expensive as you can get away with.
  - adrr 6y ago
    There’s obviously income thresholds for Medicaid, food stamps and other services. ACA clearly defines standard of medical care. Not sure what your asking because the government has already figured this out base on data.
  - mdoms 6y ago
    Everyone I know who has lived on government assistance is most certainly price sensitive.
  - dmitriid 6y ago
    > To "live" at what standard of living? Decent. Roosevelt: """ In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By business I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living. """ > A smartphone? Yes > A recent one? Define "recent". One that has internet connectivity, allows you to install apps that are increasingly required today (banks, school, mail, auth etc.) > What standard of medical care? All of it except cosmetic. A.k.a. universal healthcare. > What about entertainment? What about it? Define entertainment. Let's do this way more broadly: how about vacations, sick leaves and parental leave? > What if someone wants only to eat organic, fair trade food? Yes. The poor cannot escape bad eating habits because (especially in the US) more often than not they have no access to healthy food, and healthy food is much more expensive than current government assistance can cover.
pineaux 6y ago
I dunno, it has never been tried right? What do you think would happen?
TheCoelacanth 6y ago
If eating a hamburger is better than starving, wouldn't eating 10 hamburgers be 10x better?

yarrel 6y ago

How much should workers pay their employers for being able to work, since working is a benefit? We can differ reasonably about how much, surely. A minimum wage is not set in a vacuum, and high numbers that ignore this fact do not illustrate anything useful.

bitdotdash 6y ago

Slippery slope / Straw-man fallacy. One is to do with tying the minimum wage to a livable wage. The other is just large numbers for the sake of trying to win an argument. No one is arguing for $150/hr. The argument is simply that you aught not to be able to run a business and extract a profit if the cost to do so is employing people at such a low wage that they require governmental handouts just to pay rent and eat food. Given that, imaginary large numbers like $150/hr or $1500/hr do not come into play and thus do not need to be considered.

mrkstu 6y ago
That is still better for society than not having the economic activity. What exactly is the benefit of wholly depriving the putative worker of a job vs. making up the difference with something like food stamps and Medicaid?
OCASM 6y ago
They don't need the handouts. They could for example live in communal spaces and share resources. What exactly is "livable" anyways? Millions of people live every day with only a couple of dollars a day.
- RockIslandLine 6y ago
  "Millions of people live every day with only a couple of dollars a day." Not in the USA they don't. There is no possible way that an individual could pay for food, clothing, and shelter on that income.
  - OCASM 6y ago
    Sure, different countries have different living standards. That's the point. "Living wage" is an undefined, ever changing concept. Populist to the core.
    - arp242 6y ago
      What a strange argument; you can most certainly quantify living wage for a specific region by looking at the prices in said region.
      - OCASM 6y ago
        It's not only the prices but the specifics of what "livable" means. For some it just means the essentials, to others it includes luxuries.
        arp242 6y ago
        No, it's defined fairly clearly.
        ric2b 6y ago
        Where can I see the definition?

adrr 6y ago

Rate that allows the employee to live without government assistance like food stamps and Medicaid. Otherwise the government is just subsidizing the company.

endtime 6y ago
To "live" at what standard of living? A smartphone? A recent one? What standard of medical care? What about entertainment? What if someone wants only to eat organic, fair trade food? When you pay for yourself, you're price sensitive and try to choose what makes sense for you. When you're not price sensitive, you run into a major incentive problem. If your life is funded by taxpayers, you have no reason not to argue that basic subsistence requires a lifestyle as expensive as you can get away with.
- adrr 6y ago
  There’s obviously income thresholds for Medicaid, food stamps and other services. ACA clearly defines standard of medical care. Not sure what your asking because the government has already figured this out base on data.
- mdoms 6y ago
  Everyone I know who has lived on government assistance is most certainly price sensitive.
- dmitriid 6y ago
  > To "live" at what standard of living? Decent. Roosevelt: """ In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By business I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living. """ > A smartphone? Yes > A recent one? Define "recent". One that has internet connectivity, allows you to install apps that are increasingly required today (banks, school, mail, auth etc.) > What standard of medical care? All of it except cosmetic. A.k.a. universal healthcare. > What about entertainment? What about it? Define entertainment. Let's do this way more broadly: how about vacations, sick leaves and parental leave? > What if someone wants only to eat organic, fair trade food? Yes. The poor cannot escape bad eating habits because (especially in the US) more often than not they have no access to healthy food, and healthy food is much more expensive than current government assistance can cover.

pineaux 6y ago

I dunno, it has never been tried right? What do you think would happen?

TheCoelacanth 6y ago

If eating a hamburger is better than starving, wouldn't eating 10 hamburgers be 10x better?