4 ms·

The anti-min-wage / free market argument ignores a key fact: as a society we have decided we won't let people starve to death. So, if someone can't make ends m

by lokar 6y ago

The anti-min-wage / free market argument ignores a key fact: as a society we have decided we won't let people starve to death. So, if someone can't make ends meet, we will (via taxes) support them, at least to some extent. This support factors into the wage negotiation, allowing the employer to force a lower wage (absent a state imposed min). Absent state sate welfare style support many low wage (min and sub-min) jobs would simply not work, people could not feed themselves, and they would not accept the jobs.

nickff 6y ago
So they would starve, jobless, because the work wouldn't pay a subsistence wage? This seems unlikely, as many people work at jobs where they don't earn enough to support their lifestyle. I think the below-subsistence wage earner would be more likely to (though not certainly) move somewhere that their skills were more needed.
- smileysteve 6y ago
  > I think the below-subsistence wage earner would be more likely to (though not certainly) move somewhere that their skills were more needed. This introduces us to indentured servitude's abuses.
qeternity 6y ago
This gets to the heart of the problem of minimum wage. Walmart is often cast as a villain because many of their workers receive government benefits. Nobody stops to ask the very real question of: what if the average Walmart worker doesn’t add $X in value per hour. What if the value of the “Walmart Greeter” is less than that of minimum wage? Is it better for Walmart to fire this person because they’re not worth minimum wage (presumably it’s the highest paying job they could find, suggesting they’re not worth “minimum wage”) or is it better to have lower minimum wage with state benefit offsets? At least in the latter scenario Walmart helps shoulder the burden. Tl;dr - Often corporations are accused of abusing state benefits by not paying workers more as opposed to shouldering some of the burden that states would otherwise be left with due to unemployed masses of unskilled labor.
- DangitBobby 6y ago
  They also get a bit of a bad wrap for pricing out local businesses. Would you rather work minimum wage for a giant, faceless megacorp in a soul sucking minimum wage job with few growth prospects? Or would you rather potentially work for a local business with people you might care about and that might care about you? At least now we can have all the cheap plastic shit we ever wanted.
- VRay 6y ago
  Dude, that is crazy. Wal-Mart will NOT pay someone more than Wal-Mart thinks their pay is worth. If they were doing that, as soon as an enterprising middle-manager caught wind of it they could put together a presentation and earn themselves a juicy bonus by getting those people cut. (Well, in theory.. in practice, corporate politics can get messy)
zelphirkalt 6y ago
In which country? I don't think it is true everywhere, that we wont let others starve.
bhupy 6y ago
This argument ignores that the anti-min-wage argument isn't monolithic. The other argument is that a minimum wage can usually (though not always) result in higher prices because employers just pass on the cost of higher wages to the buyer (especially in competitive markets), and that this is a regressive way to guarantee a minimum standard of living. The strongest anti-min-wage argument is that a UBI/EITC is the better way to guarantee a minimum money floor because it's paid for by progressive taxation, while allowing the market to find the lowest possible cost for goods/services/labor. It also gives workers negotiating leverage by enabling them to choose not to work somewhere without fear of starving to death.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > The strongest anti-min-wage argument is that a UBI/EITC is the better way to guarantee a minimum money floor EITC doesn't guarantee a minimum anything since, as the name suggests, you need earned income to get it and you get more of it with more earned income, to a certain point. It's true that NIT, which is equivalent to UBI, was the inspiration for EITC, but EITC is a NIT through a carnival funhouse mirror.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    Sure, I meant a "reformed" EITC, but my point was to compare it to a UBI/NIT. It would absolutely be more desirable to remove the employment requirement and perhaps even increase it by at least 3x.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Absent state welfare style support many low wage (min and sub-min) jobs would simply not work, people could not feed themselves, and they would not accept the jobs. Given the choice between nothing and less than adequate pay, they would accept the jobs to buy a little more time to find something better before starving. They wouldn't be sustainable, but without public welfare people are going to grasp at what straws they have, not turn away something when they have nothing.

by lokar 6y ago

nickff 6y ago

So they would starve, jobless, because the work wouldn't pay a subsistence wage? This seems unlikely, as many people work at jobs where they don't earn enough to support their lifestyle. I think the below-subsistence wage earner would be more likely to (though not certainly) move somewhere that their skills were more needed.

smileysteve 6y ago
> I think the below-subsistence wage earner would be more likely to (though not certainly) move somewhere that their skills were more needed. This introduces us to indentured servitude's abuses.

qeternity 6y ago

This gets to the heart of the problem of minimum wage. Walmart is often cast as a villain because many of their workers receive government benefits. Nobody stops to ask the very real question of: what if the average Walmart worker doesn’t add $X in value per hour. What if the value of the “Walmart Greeter” is less than that of minimum wage? Is it better for Walmart to fire this person because they’re not worth minimum wage (presumably it’s the highest paying job they could find, suggesting they’re not worth “minimum wage”) or is it better to have lower minimum wage with state benefit offsets? At least in the latter scenario Walmart helps shoulder the burden. Tl;dr - Often corporations are accused of abusing state benefits by not paying workers more as opposed to shouldering some of the burden that states would otherwise be left with due to unemployed masses of unskilled labor.

DangitBobby 6y ago
They also get a bit of a bad wrap for pricing out local businesses. Would you rather work minimum wage for a giant, faceless megacorp in a soul sucking minimum wage job with few growth prospects? Or would you rather potentially work for a local business with people you might care about and that might care about you? At least now we can have all the cheap plastic shit we ever wanted.
VRay 6y ago
Dude, that is crazy. Wal-Mart will NOT pay someone more than Wal-Mart thinks their pay is worth. If they were doing that, as soon as an enterprising middle-manager caught wind of it they could put together a presentation and earn themselves a juicy bonus by getting those people cut. (Well, in theory.. in practice, corporate politics can get messy)

zelphirkalt 6y ago

In which country? I don't think it is true everywhere, that we wont let others starve.

bhupy 6y ago

This argument ignores that the anti-min-wage argument isn't monolithic. The other argument is that a minimum wage can usually (though not always) result in higher prices because employers just pass on the cost of higher wages to the buyer (especially in competitive markets), and that this is a regressive way to guarantee a minimum standard of living. The strongest anti-min-wage argument is that a UBI/EITC is the better way to guarantee a minimum money floor because it's paid for by progressive taxation, while allowing the market to find the lowest possible cost for goods/services/labor. It also gives workers negotiating leverage by enabling them to choose not to work somewhere without fear of starving to death.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> The strongest anti-min-wage argument is that a UBI/EITC is the better way to guarantee a minimum money floor EITC doesn't guarantee a minimum anything since, as the name suggests, you need earned income to get it and you get more of it with more earned income, to a certain point. It's true that NIT, which is equivalent to UBI, was the inspiration for EITC, but EITC is a NIT through a carnival funhouse mirror.
- bhupy 6y ago
  Sure, I meant a "reformed" EITC, but my point was to compare it to a UBI/NIT. It would absolutely be more desirable to remove the employment requirement and perhaps even increase it by at least 3x.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Absent state welfare style support many low wage (min and sub-min) jobs would simply not work, people could not feed themselves, and they would not accept the jobs. Given the choice between nothing and less than adequate pay, they would accept the jobs to buy a little more time to find something better before starving. They wouldn't be sustainable, but without public welfare people are going to grasp at what straws they have, not turn away something when they have nothing.