14 ms·

How about raising wages to attract employment? Where is the invisible hand when you need it? Is it a workforce shortage or a pay rate shortage?

toxik 5y ago
I hear this argument quite often, but it IS the market’s will. In fact, if the market got what it wanted, many towns and villages would just not be viable. My point is not that minimum wage is bad, but rather, redistribution of wealth is necessary.
- fridif 5y ago
  Who are we redistributing it from? It seems it is always the not overly secure people who have to have their wealth redistributed.
  - c2h5oh 5y ago
    If a breaking point is reached any wealth is distributed. Violently, inefficiently and unfairly, but all of it. Where do you think the support for communism came from in early XX century?
  - taurath 5y ago
    Which proposal is that? The ones about putting more taxes on people making over $400,000 a year?
    - fridif 5y ago
      With inflation and cost of living rising so much, is 400k pretax really "insanely rich"? I can barely afford my house and car, which middle class people of 50 years ago had no issues affording. Aren't there many more people out there making 50M a year who should be targeted before I am targeted?
  - toxik 5y ago
    Wealth redistribution to support small towns would be taken from large cities. Large cities are typically enormously profitable. Wealth redistribution to support poor people would be taken from businesses. This is a typical social welfare model.
- imtringued 5y ago
  If unemployment is low then this is not a matter of viability though. Redistribution of wealth is necessary but only to the point where it enables productive work to be done.
- Workaccount2 5y ago
  My "radical" take is that we need to crush wages. Mcdonalds cook - $40k/yr Senior Dev - $130k/yr CEO - $180K/yr I don't know how something like this could be implemented, but we are on a fast track to 95% of wages going to 5% of workers.
  - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
    >we are on a fast track to 95% of wages going to 5% of workers Really? Based on what data? The US Census Bureau has data on the aggregate share of income in Table H-2. For 2019, the top 5% of households received 23.0% of aggregate income (a bit lower than 2018 and 2017). Looking back 25 years before that to 1994, that number was 21.2% and (eyeballing it) seems to have been fairly range-bound in the 20-23% range since the early 1990s. The data starts in 1967, where that number was 17.2%.
orblivion 5y ago
I keep seeing this argument, but do you get that there's an artificial floor placed by these benefits? You can't really talk about the free market at that point.
- CyberRabbi 5y ago
  Right, gives a whole new meaning to the term “invisible hand”
- asdff 5y ago
  Presumably this benefit is to cover the wages of someone who might have been employed full time. $300 a week / 40 hours = $7.5/hr. There's your artificial floor. Great money if you are living with your parents, tougher situation if you are the parent.
  - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
    I'm happy to be corrected on this point, but actually aren't we talking about $300 of additional benefits on top of whatever the state is providing that is funded by the Federal government?
    - AuryGlenz 5y ago
      Yep. For me in Minnesota that’s $850 a week, so over $21 an hour for a 40 hour work week. I’m not sure how anyone even approaching minimum wage is supposed to compete with that.
- bildung 5y ago
  Supply and demand work both ways. If you remove unemployment benefits from the local economy, what do you think this will do to local demand, and thus to revenue of local shops? And what will this do to the wage level the average local shop can afford? Edit: Growing up in the poor part of my country, I could see that first-hand: The father of my friend had a small shop and had a revenue spike every month, the same day every month. It was the day after unemployment benefits landed on people's bank accounts.
nikanj 5y ago
As an employer, it's really hard to compete for talent with the company down the street, when the company down the street is paying $300 per week for 0 hours worked. That really messes with the invisible hand.
- asdff 5y ago
  Sounds like you should be paying your staff more than $7.5/hr if that is the going rate by this company down the street paying $300 a week.
- bildung 5y ago
  If you can't afford to pay more than $7,50 per hour, then the market has spoken: you have no working business model.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - rataata_jr 5y ago
    What if you are just starting out? Should only the big companies be able to hire workers? Is this tilting the odds in favor of say McD etc?
    - johnchristopher 5y ago
      Then it means your working business model relies on VC money or government subsidies. Founders can take the cut but not the employers who don't benefit from it. Isn't the buck supposed to be passed down to the customers, not the workers ?
    - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
      If you can't pay a living wage, don't start or have a business. Period. This isn't a big vs small business debate - small places don't always pay crap wages, and some big places do pay crap wages. Sidenote: A lot of fast food places are franchises, and a franchise might just have one or two. They aren't in any better position than a family-owned fast food place in a small town.
c2h5oh 5y ago
The invisible hand of the market has selected the most profitable solution: a combination of PR and donating to politicians. Why raise wages if you can force people to choose between starvation and working two jobs until they break of old age or die of a very likely preventable disease that they could not afford to diagnose and/or treat? A minimum wage is below housing wage in every single state in US. https://www.businessinsider.com/minimum-wage-worker-cant-afford-one-bedroom-rent-us-2018-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/minimum-wage-worker-cant-aff...
- calvano915 5y ago
  > Why raise wages if you can force people to choose between starvation and working two jobs until they break of old age or die of a very likely preventable disease that they could not afford to diagnose and/or treat? Well they obviously got what they deserved from not working hard enough. Must have not been told about bootstraps /s
ok_coo 5y ago
Supply and demand until it comes to the labor market. Then, it's we're entitled to all the cheap labor we require.

toxik 5y ago

I hear this argument quite often, but it IS the market’s will. In fact, if the market got what it wanted, many towns and villages would just not be viable. My point is not that minimum wage is bad, but rather, redistribution of wealth is necessary.

fridif 5y ago
Who are we redistributing it from? It seems it is always the not overly secure people who have to have their wealth redistributed.
- c2h5oh 5y ago
  If a breaking point is reached any wealth is distributed. Violently, inefficiently and unfairly, but all of it. Where do you think the support for communism came from in early XX century?
- taurath 5y ago
  Which proposal is that? The ones about putting more taxes on people making over $400,000 a year?
  - fridif 5y ago
    With inflation and cost of living rising so much, is 400k pretax really "insanely rich"? I can barely afford my house and car, which middle class people of 50 years ago had no issues affording. Aren't there many more people out there making 50M a year who should be targeted before I am targeted?
- toxik 5y ago
  Wealth redistribution to support small towns would be taken from large cities. Large cities are typically enormously profitable. Wealth redistribution to support poor people would be taken from businesses. This is a typical social welfare model.
imtringued 5y ago
If unemployment is low then this is not a matter of viability though. Redistribution of wealth is necessary but only to the point where it enables productive work to be done.
Workaccount2 5y ago
My "radical" take is that we need to crush wages. Mcdonalds cook - $40k/yr Senior Dev - $130k/yr CEO - $180K/yr I don't know how something like this could be implemented, but we are on a fast track to 95% of wages going to 5% of workers.
- NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
  >we are on a fast track to 95% of wages going to 5% of workers Really? Based on what data? The US Census Bureau has data on the aggregate share of income in Table H-2. For 2019, the top 5% of households received 23.0% of aggregate income (a bit lower than 2018 and 2017). Looking back 25 years before that to 1994, that number was 21.2% and (eyeballing it) seems to have been fairly range-bound in the 20-23% range since the early 1990s. The data starts in 1967, where that number was 17.2%.

orblivion 5y ago

I keep seeing this argument, but do you get that there's an artificial floor placed by these benefits? You can't really talk about the free market at that point.

CyberRabbi 5y ago
Right, gives a whole new meaning to the term “invisible hand”
asdff 5y ago
Presumably this benefit is to cover the wages of someone who might have been employed full time. $300 a week / 40 hours = $7.5/hr. There's your artificial floor. Great money if you are living with your parents, tougher situation if you are the parent.
- NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
  I'm happy to be corrected on this point, but actually aren't we talking about $300 of additional benefits on top of whatever the state is providing that is funded by the Federal government?
  - AuryGlenz 5y ago
    Yep. For me in Minnesota that’s $850 a week, so over $21 an hour for a 40 hour work week. I’m not sure how anyone even approaching minimum wage is supposed to compete with that.
bildung 5y ago
Supply and demand work both ways. If you remove unemployment benefits from the local economy, what do you think this will do to local demand, and thus to revenue of local shops? And what will this do to the wage level the average local shop can afford? Edit: Growing up in the poor part of my country, I could see that first-hand: The father of my friend had a small shop and had a revenue spike every month, the same day every month. It was the day after unemployment benefits landed on people's bank accounts.

nikanj 5y ago

As an employer, it's really hard to compete for talent with the company down the street, when the company down the street is paying $300 per week for 0 hours worked. That really messes with the invisible hand.

asdff 5y ago
Sounds like you should be paying your staff more than $7.5/hr if that is the going rate by this company down the street paying $300 a week.
bildung 5y ago
If you can't afford to pay more than $7,50 per hour, then the market has spoken: you have no working business model.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- rataata_jr 5y ago
  What if you are just starting out? Should only the big companies be able to hire workers? Is this tilting the odds in favor of say McD etc?
  - johnchristopher 5y ago
    Then it means your working business model relies on VC money or government subsidies. Founders can take the cut but not the employers who don't benefit from it. Isn't the buck supposed to be passed down to the customers, not the workers ?
  - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
    If you can't pay a living wage, don't start or have a business. Period. This isn't a big vs small business debate - small places don't always pay crap wages, and some big places do pay crap wages. Sidenote: A lot of fast food places are franchises, and a franchise might just have one or two. They aren't in any better position than a family-owned fast food place in a small town.

c2h5oh 5y ago

The invisible hand of the market has selected the most profitable solution: a combination of PR and donating to politicians. Why raise wages if you can force people to choose between starvation and working two jobs until they break of old age or die of a very likely preventable disease that they could not afford to diagnose and/or treat? A minimum wage is below housing wage in every single state in US. https://www.businessinsider.com/minimum-wage-worker-cant-afford-one-bedroom-rent-us-2018-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/minimum-wage-worker-cant-aff...

calvano915 5y ago
> Why raise wages if you can force people to choose between starvation and working two jobs until they break of old age or die of a very likely preventable disease that they could not afford to diagnose and/or treat? Well they obviously got what they deserved from not working hard enough. Must have not been told about bootstraps /s

ok_coo 5y ago

Supply and demand until it comes to the labor market. Then, it's we're entitled to all the cheap labor we require.