3 ms·

Well, while it's important that the minimum wage is $24/hr (or $15/hr), none of these results tell us whether the better way to do that is to mandate that emplo

by bhupy 6y ago

Well, while it's important that the minimum wage is $24/hr (or $15/hr), none of these results tell us whether the better way to do that is to mandate that employers pay that full wage, or for the government to fill in the blanks with a UBI/NIT funded by progressive taxation.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
monocasa 6y ago
If productivity is going up, why would we subsidizing their employers by paying part of their wage?
- jfengel 6y ago
  Progressive taxation would mean that the subsidy comes from the people making the most money. The goal of a UBI is to decouple basic living from employment, giving employees more leverage to negotiate pay.
  - monocasa 6y ago
    But why aren't they paying a living wage in the first place, a wage that they were paying in the past if not for inflation? And wouldn't the cost of the subsidy mainly be spread across the upper end of the middle class and not the employers, making it be a net benefit for the employers? Walmart for instance already has a huge emphasis on setting their employees up with welfare and using that to pay them a below living wage, why would expanding that system convince employers to pay more?
    - bhupy 6y ago
      > But why aren't they paying a living wage in the first place, a wage that they were paying in the past if not for inflation? Because the market rate for labor doesn't always work out to equal a "living wage". Markets are remarkably good at bringing down the price of goods & services, but that necessarily means that they also bring down the price of labor, which is an input. While this is good for most people, it's obviously less good for those workers that are engaged in low leverage work where net-productivity hasn't changed. As a society, we should help those workers via welfare.
      - monocasa 6y ago
        If they actually brought down the cost of goods & services overall, we'd see the consumer price index dropping. That's not what's happened. Most of the structures of UBI I've seen seem like a massive redistribution scheme to the wealthy.
        bhupy 6y ago
        > we'd see the consumer price index dropping. That's not what's happened. Not for all goods & services. The consumer price index has been falling for most goods & services with the notable exception of healthcare, housing, education, and (to a lesser degree) food. https://howmuch.net/articles/price-changes-in-usa-in-past-20-years https://howmuch.net/articles/price-changes-in-usa-in-past-20... The only way to prove that “market forces do not reduce prices” is if all goods & services are provisioned through purely market forces, and the CPI still increases. But not all goods & services are provisioned through purely market forces. The price of food in particular is largely dictated by the price of low wage labor, and minimum wage laws bring that up, despite productivity improvements elsewhere in the supply chain. In other words, the consumer price index for food could drop if the cost of labor wasn't constrained. > Most of the structures of UBI I've seen seem like a massive redistribution scheme to the wealthy. Only true for landlords, but that's because the supply of housing is artificially constrained by zoning regulations. If we fix that, then this becomes less true.
        monocasa 6y ago
        > Not for all goods & services... Yes, some sub indices have gone up, others have gone down. That doesn't change the fact that _overall_ the CPI has gone up over time. Wages have been having an inverse relationship with prices overall. This is not a case of "prices are cheaper so the wages are less too". > The only way to prove that “market forces do not reduce prices” I'm not sure why you're putting in quotes something I didn't say. > Only true for landlords, but that's because the supply of housing is artificially constrained by zoning regulations. If we fix that, then this becomes less true. No it's true for all employers that would have had to pay a living wage and now don't because the middle class will subsidize their labor costs.
- imtringued 6y ago
  Minimum wage without job guarantee has no teeth. When you're jobless you get nothing.

by bhupy 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

monocasa 6y ago

If productivity is going up, why would we subsidizing their employers by paying part of their wage?

jfengel 6y ago
Progressive taxation would mean that the subsidy comes from the people making the most money. The goal of a UBI is to decouple basic living from employment, giving employees more leverage to negotiate pay.
- monocasa 6y ago
  But why aren't they paying a living wage in the first place, a wage that they were paying in the past if not for inflation? And wouldn't the cost of the subsidy mainly be spread across the upper end of the middle class and not the employers, making it be a net benefit for the employers? Walmart for instance already has a huge emphasis on setting their employees up with welfare and using that to pay them a below living wage, why would expanding that system convince employers to pay more?
  - bhupy 6y ago
    > But why aren't they paying a living wage in the first place, a wage that they were paying in the past if not for inflation? Because the market rate for labor doesn't always work out to equal a "living wage". Markets are remarkably good at bringing down the price of goods & services, but that necessarily means that they also bring down the price of labor, which is an input. While this is good for most people, it's obviously less good for those workers that are engaged in low leverage work where net-productivity hasn't changed. As a society, we should help those workers via welfare.
    - monocasa 6y ago
      If they actually brought down the cost of goods & services overall, we'd see the consumer price index dropping. That's not what's happened. Most of the structures of UBI I've seen seem like a massive redistribution scheme to the wealthy.
      - bhupy 6y ago
        > we'd see the consumer price index dropping. That's not what's happened. Not for all goods & services. The consumer price index has been falling for most goods & services with the notable exception of healthcare, housing, education, and (to a lesser degree) food. https://howmuch.net/articles/price-changes-in-usa-in-past-20-years https://howmuch.net/articles/price-changes-in-usa-in-past-20... The only way to prove that “market forces do not reduce prices” is if all goods & services are provisioned through purely market forces, and the CPI still increases. But not all goods & services are provisioned through purely market forces. The price of food in particular is largely dictated by the price of low wage labor, and minimum wage laws bring that up, despite productivity improvements elsewhere in the supply chain. In other words, the consumer price index for food could drop if the cost of labor wasn't constrained. > Most of the structures of UBI I've seen seem like a massive redistribution scheme to the wealthy. Only true for landlords, but that's because the supply of housing is artificially constrained by zoning regulations. If we fix that, then this becomes less true.
        monocasa 6y ago
        > Not for all goods & services... Yes, some sub indices have gone up, others have gone down. That doesn't change the fact that _overall_ the CPI has gone up over time. Wages have been having an inverse relationship with prices overall. This is not a case of "prices are cheaper so the wages are less too". > The only way to prove that “market forces do not reduce prices” I'm not sure why you're putting in quotes something I didn't say. > Only true for landlords, but that's because the supply of housing is artificially constrained by zoning regulations. If we fix that, then this becomes less true. No it's true for all employers that would have had to pay a living wage and now don't because the middle class will subsidize their labor costs.
imtringued 6y ago
Minimum wage without job guarantee has no teeth. When you're jobless you get nothing.