4 ms·

What if it becomes widespread? And every restaurant raises wages to attract workers while also raising prices? In other words, we need some people to be paid ve

What if it becomes widespread? And every restaurant raises wages to attract workers while also raising prices? In other words, we need some people to be paid very little to produce the cheap food for these hire paid food service workers. Where is the bottom?

spaetzleesser 5y ago
Something seems to be fundamentally wrong with an economy where we think that we need people to work in jobs that are paid so little that these people can't make a living. and it's viewed as a problem to raise their incomes. This while at the same time some people are becoming very rich and the country considers itself very wealthy.
- listless 5y ago
  To be clear, I don't know that anyone thinks that we need people to work in jobs where they are paid so little that they can't make a living. I think those jobs work very well for students and folks who need part time income. What I am debating is whether raising rages simply causes inflation that then negates the effect of the wage. That's not a problem with an economy per-say, but rather just how an economy works. But perhaps I'm missing something. All of that said, I share the concern about wealth inequality. A country will eventually collapse if the people at the bottom feel like the game is rigged and they will never get ahead.
  - spaetzleesser 5y ago
    “What I am debating is whether raising rages simply causes inflation that then negates the effect of the wage.” You could argue that exactly this has happened when upper incomes were raised disproportionately in the last few decades. All the major expenses/investments of that class like housing, health care, education, stocks and others shot up. Seems there is more money around than they can use productively so they just kept bidding up prices.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Something seems to be fundamentally wrong with an economy where we think that we need people to work in jobs that are paid so little that these people can't make a living. and it's viewed as a problem to raise their incomes. The problem here is equating wages and income. It is to everyone’s benefit if jobs with a net positive value get done, even if the value isn't enough to support the worker at an adequate lifestyle without supplementation. Everyone should also have income to support an adequate lifestyle, but there's no reason that needs to come from wages — that's what a social welfare system, whether classical or UBI-based — ought to guarantee. Say we decide $1,000/month is the minimum support level. It is generally better that a job that the market would pay $500/month gets done, the profits of owners and wages of higher level employees resulting from that job being done get paid and taxed, and the worker gets at least $500 in social support than that the job goes undone, the taxes on the other income streams dependent on it go unpaid, and the worker collects $1,000 in social support. And its even worse for the worker in the latter case if the minimum income we demand to allow work is higher than the social support we provide the able bodied without work (which is generally the case in the US, especially unless you have dependent children, outside of short-term unemployment of those who previously had sufficient income for UI to provide an adequate temporary support.)

spaetzleesser 5y ago

Something seems to be fundamentally wrong with an economy where we think that we need people to work in jobs that are paid so little that these people can't make a living. and it's viewed as a problem to raise their incomes. This while at the same time some people are becoming very rich and the country considers itself very wealthy.

listless 5y ago
To be clear, I don't know that anyone thinks that we need people to work in jobs where they are paid so little that they can't make a living. I think those jobs work very well for students and folks who need part time income. What I am debating is whether raising rages simply causes inflation that then negates the effect of the wage. That's not a problem with an economy per-say, but rather just how an economy works. But perhaps I'm missing something. All of that said, I share the concern about wealth inequality. A country will eventually collapse if the people at the bottom feel like the game is rigged and they will never get ahead.
- spaetzleesser 5y ago
  “What I am debating is whether raising rages simply causes inflation that then negates the effect of the wage.” You could argue that exactly this has happened when upper incomes were raised disproportionately in the last few decades. All the major expenses/investments of that class like housing, health care, education, stocks and others shot up. Seems there is more money around than they can use productively so they just kept bidding up prices.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Something seems to be fundamentally wrong with an economy where we think that we need people to work in jobs that are paid so little that these people can't make a living. and it's viewed as a problem to raise their incomes. The problem here is equating wages and income. It is to everyone’s benefit if jobs with a net positive value get done, even if the value isn't enough to support the worker at an adequate lifestyle without supplementation. Everyone should also have income to support an adequate lifestyle, but there's no reason that needs to come from wages — that's what a social welfare system, whether classical or UBI-based — ought to guarantee. Say we decide $1,000/month is the minimum support level. It is generally better that a job that the market would pay $500/month gets done, the profits of owners and wages of higher level employees resulting from that job being done get paid and taxed, and the worker gets at least $500 in social support than that the job goes undone, the taxes on the other income streams dependent on it go unpaid, and the worker collects $1,000 in social support. And its even worse for the worker in the latter case if the minimum income we demand to allow work is higher than the social support we provide the able bodied without work (which is generally the case in the US, especially unless you have dependent children, outside of short-term unemployment of those who previously had sufficient income for UI to provide an adequate temporary support.)