5 ms·

I think you missed his point with that comment. It's not about minimum wage, rather, he was making an example of literally paying homeless people to act like fu

I think you missed his point with that comment. It's not about minimum wage, rather, he was making an example of literally paying homeless people to act like furniture.

olalonde 15y ago
I would act like furniture for a muliple of my current salary. I bet you would too and I bet the homeless people did the same math (his alternatives are probably less attractive). I feel you are the one who fails to see the larger principle.
- pessimizer 15y ago
  According to that argument, if your current salary is zero, a single cent would be adequate to get you to do anything.
  - olalonde 15y ago
    Yes, if that's the best alternative. In practice no, because there are better alternatives (i.e. being a Wifi hotspot for 20$/day). If interpreted broadly (any source of financial support), zero salary means I am literally starving to death soon. I'd do a lot of things before letting myself die. But in practice, the opportunity cost of doing your 1 cent job is just too high, even for desperate people.
    - pessimizer 15y ago
      You would still die, just after being humiliated and while clutching a penny. It would be a bad decision to do anything for a penny when you were making nothing, and the person who got you do do it would be a bad person. So, as a society, we choose an amount (not a factor of previous earnings) that is minimally acceptable to us, and if that wage is too high to be profitable for anyone, we prefer (and I prefer) that we just help and not profit. That's a social safety net. Basically you've already conceded that, we're just discussing the amount (to paraphrase something else). I feel it's already been adequately set by law.
      - olalonde 15y ago
        Obviously homeless people will disagree with you since they cannot find a job at minimum wage and help is just not coming to them.

5 ms·

I think you missed his point with that comment. It's not about minimum wage, rather, he was making an example of literally paying homeless people to act like fu

by kurtvarner 15y ago

I think you missed his point with that comment. It's not about minimum wage, rather, he was making an example of literally paying homeless people to act like furniture.

olalonde 15y ago
I would act like furniture for a muliple of my current salary. I bet you would too and I bet the homeless people did the same math (his alternatives are probably less attractive). I feel you are the one who fails to see the larger principle.
- pessimizer 15y ago
  According to that argument, if your current salary is zero, a single cent would be adequate to get you to do anything.
  - olalonde 15y ago
    Yes, if that's the best alternative. In practice no, because there are better alternatives (i.e. being a Wifi hotspot for 20$/day). If interpreted broadly (any source of financial support), zero salary means I am literally starving to death soon. I'd do a lot of things before letting myself die. But in practice, the opportunity cost of doing your 1 cent job is just too high, even for desperate people.
    - pessimizer 15y ago
      You would still die, just after being humiliated and while clutching a penny. It would be a bad decision to do anything for a penny when you were making nothing, and the person who got you do do it would be a bad person. So, as a society, we choose an amount (not a factor of previous earnings) that is minimally acceptable to us, and if that wage is too high to be profitable for anyone, we prefer (and I prefer) that we just help and not profit. That's a social safety net. Basically you've already conceded that, we're just discussing the amount (to paraphrase something else). I feel it's already been adequately set by law.
      - olalonde 15y ago
        Obviously homeless people will disagree with you since they cannot find a job at minimum wage and help is just not coming to them.