3 ms·
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 hig
by 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 agoSure, 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.