35 ms·

If a worker effectively performs the required tasks for $1.46/hr, this demonstrates the work's intrinsic value quite explicitly. The onus to make a higher wage

If a worker effectively performs the required tasks for $1.46/hr, this demonstrates the work's intrinsic value quite explicitly. The onus to make a higher wage to improve their lifestyle is on the individual, given the freedom they have to allocate their time as they see fit. It's not incumbent upon others or businesses to pay more for tasks if a lower-cost, higher-value solution exists.

zzzeek 3y ago
> It's not incumbent upon others or businesses to pay more for tasks if a lower-cost, higher-value solution exists. in the US, we've collectively decided (through elections) that there should be a minimum wage, from which it follows that we've also decided that the "wages have no bottom" argument, i.e. they should be able to go as low as possible without limit, is unethical and detrimental to society.
- bobjordan 3y ago
  Yes that’s true. I’m not making the argument that “wages have no bottom”. As another poster has noted, the wage paid in this case is above the local minimum. But as the US participates in global trade, solutions that are extremely uncompetitive like those that rely on relatively higher costs of US unskilled labor, are bound to not be chosen. Forcing the decision makers to use sub-optimal higher cost solutions ultimately makes them uncompetitive and increases the risk of failure. I haven’t seen any logic to justify that.
- memefrog 3y ago
  The minimum wage is zero. 'Minimum wage' laws don't have anything to do with the actual minimum wage. They forbid employment at wages within a range between the minimum wage and a certain so-called 'minimum wage'. People that would otherwise be paid within that range instead get paid the actual minimum wage: nothing.
  - zzzeek 3y ago
    you're making a common argument in a very roundabout way that "the minimum wage leads to unemployment", which is not borne out by any data whatsoever

zzzeek 3y ago

> It's not incumbent upon others or businesses to pay more for tasks if a lower-cost, higher-value solution exists. in the US, we've collectively decided (through elections) that there should be a minimum wage, from which it follows that we've also decided that the "wages have no bottom" argument, i.e. they should be able to go as low as possible without limit, is unethical and detrimental to society.

bobjordan 3y ago
Yes that’s true. I’m not making the argument that “wages have no bottom”. As another poster has noted, the wage paid in this case is above the local minimum. But as the US participates in global trade, solutions that are extremely uncompetitive like those that rely on relatively higher costs of US unskilled labor, are bound to not be chosen. Forcing the decision makers to use sub-optimal higher cost solutions ultimately makes them uncompetitive and increases the risk of failure. I haven’t seen any logic to justify that.
memefrog 3y ago
The minimum wage is zero. 'Minimum wage' laws don't have anything to do with the actual minimum wage. They forbid employment at wages within a range between the minimum wage and a certain so-called 'minimum wage'. People that would otherwise be paid within that range instead get paid the actual minimum wage: nothing.
- zzzeek 3y ago
  you're making a common argument in a very roundabout way that "the minimum wage leads to unemployment", which is not borne out by any data whatsoever