4 ms·
> any of the people employed at very low wages have attributes which mean that they are not worth hiring at higher costs. Unless the job needs to be done, whic
by klmadfejno 6y ago
> any of the people employed at very low wages have attributes which mean that they are not worth hiring at higher costs.
Unless the job needs to be done, which is generally the case among minimum wage workers. That was my point. You need cleaning staff, and retail workers, and what not. You still hire them even if they cost more. People don't have intrinsic prices. It's not like an old person costs exactly $4.32 an hour and therefore is unable to find work if the minimum wage is $7.25.
- nickff 6y agoThe fact that the job needs to be done does not mean that the job needs to be done by the type of person currently doing it. One common response to price floors is to change the qualifications/requirements (as in my wine example). The employer will hire 'over-qualified' candidates to perform a job which does not require their skills or abilities. Wine is still being 'hired' with a price floor, but it is a different wine, and the price floor doesn't do the low-quality wine producer any good. This example is actually derived from a time when England imposed a flat tax on French wines.
- klmadfejno 6y agoPeople aren't wine. They do not have intrinsic prices. What you're saying just isn't correct. We've got plenty of people with mental handicaps working at grocery stores and what not, many of them making more than minimum wage. What you're describing is not real.
- nickff 6y agoIf you've ever worked at or hired for jobs between 1x and 2x the current minimum wage (in a given area), you know that the kind of people you can hire at 2x are totally different from the people you hire at 1x.