3 ms·

Corner stores don't need to be providing higher education to employees in order to be giving them skills. Basic jobs provide plenty of skills and lessons that c

Corner stores don't need to be providing higher education to employees in order to be giving them skills. Basic jobs provide plenty of skills and lessons that cannot be learned while sitting at home, such as dealing with customers, time management, and basic problem solving in a work environment. I think the better option is to guarantee a minimum wage through a subsidy, while abolishing all minimum wage laws. Like a negative income tax. So let's say you earn $12 stocking shelves, the government should subsidize $4 per hour to give you a total income of $16 per hour. If you make $15/hr, they subsidize $1. If you make $20, they subsidize zero. In this way, the downsides of minimum wages are avoided (cutting back on hours, laying people off, raising prices, and pricing low skill people out of the workforce), while still allowing a decent income for anyone working full time. You can tax the subsidy at a higher rate than your normal tax rate, so that businesses are still dealing with competitive market incentives and cannot pay a $1/hr leaving the remainder to the government, and so that employees are always incentivized to take the highest paying job. If you run the numbers, providing every employee in america with a $16 minimum wage, working 40 hours per week, and assuming the average employee making less than $16 makes $12, would cost $500 billion per year. This is not an out of reach policy.

ognarb 6y ago
So if I set up a company and I'm paying my employees $4/hr, then the government need subsidizing $12/hr of my employees wage. This is completely broken, even more if the company is making tons of profit from paying their employees only $4/hr.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  As I outlined in my comment, no one would take a $4 an hour job. They'd incur a higher tax liability than if they went to the guy across the street offering $10, or whatever he paid before the policy passed. Businesses would continue to compete for labor. It would continue to be to the employee's benefit to take the highest paying job.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    What makes you think they wouldn’t take a $4/hr job. You know the federal minimum wage for tipped workers is less than that yeah? The fact that they don’t is only because they can’t, because minimum wage law.
    - missedthecue 6y ago
      No one pays minimum wage as it is. In my state it's $7.25 and no one pays that. They're all in the $11-$15 range. If your theory was correct, all entry level positions would be paying $7.25.
      - arcticbull 6y ago
        Nah, even a single one proves my case.
midasuni 6y ago
> the government should subsidize $4 per hour to give you a total income of $16 per hour. If you make $15/hr, they subsidize $1 Pretty bad example - where’s the incentive to work harder for the extra $3/hour when you get nothing? And do you really mean to tax per hour rather than per year which is where we currently base income taxes on? Wouldn’t that continue to encourage 70, 80, 90 hour weeks which is really bad.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  "Pretty bad example - where’s the incentive to work harder for the extra $3/hour when you get nothing?" I don't understand what you're asking here. "And do you really mean to tax per hour rather than per year which is where we currently base income taxes on?" You'd continue to be taxed the same way. But all the income from the subsidy would be taxed at a higher rate than the income the business paid. In this way, you are always incentivized as the employee to take a higher paying job.
  - midasuni 6y ago
    Your example had the $12 job giving you $16, and the $15 job giving you $16 What’s the difference? What stops you doing a deal where you (on paper) work 80 hours a week for $8 rather than 40 for $16, you’d cost the employer the same, but you would get twice the income ($1280 a week). How do you even define when you’re working.
    - missedthecue 6y ago
      You'd make more money taking the $15 job than the $12 job. Your W-2 says how many hours you worked (and how much overtime, if any). The federal government has access to those W-2s, and can determine the subsidy amount using it.
      - midasuni 6y ago
        Your example said 12 plus 4 15 plus 1 I’d expect it to be more like 12 plus 4 16 plus 3 20 plus 2 24 plus 1 A 20% marginal tax rate. The hour thing seems massively corruptible

ognarb 6y ago

So if I set up a company and I'm paying my employees $4/hr, then the government need subsidizing $12/hr of my employees wage. This is completely broken, even more if the company is making tons of profit from paying their employees only $4/hr.

missedthecue 6y ago
As I outlined in my comment, no one would take a $4 an hour job. They'd incur a higher tax liability than if they went to the guy across the street offering $10, or whatever he paid before the policy passed. Businesses would continue to compete for labor. It would continue to be to the employee's benefit to take the highest paying job.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  What makes you think they wouldn’t take a $4/hr job. You know the federal minimum wage for tipped workers is less than that yeah? The fact that they don’t is only because they can’t, because minimum wage law.
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    No one pays minimum wage as it is. In my state it's $7.25 and no one pays that. They're all in the $11-$15 range. If your theory was correct, all entry level positions would be paying $7.25.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      Nah, even a single one proves my case.

midasuni 6y ago

> the government should subsidize $4 per hour to give you a total income of $16 per hour. If you make $15/hr, they subsidize $1 Pretty bad example - where’s the incentive to work harder for the extra $3/hour when you get nothing? And do you really mean to tax per hour rather than per year which is where we currently base income taxes on? Wouldn’t that continue to encourage 70, 80, 90 hour weeks which is really bad.

missedthecue 6y ago
"Pretty bad example - where’s the incentive to work harder for the extra $3/hour when you get nothing?" I don't understand what you're asking here. "And do you really mean to tax per hour rather than per year which is where we currently base income taxes on?" You'd continue to be taxed the same way. But all the income from the subsidy would be taxed at a higher rate than the income the business paid. In this way, you are always incentivized as the employee to take a higher paying job.
- midasuni 6y ago
  Your example had the $12 job giving you $16, and the $15 job giving you $16 What’s the difference? What stops you doing a deal where you (on paper) work 80 hours a week for $8 rather than 40 for $16, you’d cost the employer the same, but you would get twice the income ($1280 a week). How do you even define when you’re working.
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    You'd make more money taking the $15 job than the $12 job. Your W-2 says how many hours you worked (and how much overtime, if any). The federal government has access to those W-2s, and can determine the subsidy amount using it.
    - midasuni 6y ago
      Your example said 12 plus 4 15 plus 1 I’d expect it to be more like 12 plus 4 16 plus 3 20 plus 2 24 plus 1 A 20% marginal tax rate. The hour thing seems massively corruptible