5 ms·

Of course there are multiple dimensions to the employees decision of how much they are willing to trade their time for, but they are always boiled down to a sin

Of course there are multiple dimensions to the employees decision of how much they are willing to trade their time for, but they are always boiled down to a singular financial value. This value is what they are paid. I reject your assertion that an employee clearly realizes more than $20/hr in value to their employer. But even if they did: why should the employer be forced to pay them more, when the job itself is unskilled and therefore has a surplus of folks demanding the position, even at their current rates of pay?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
woodruffw 3y ago
> I reject your assertion that an employee clearly realizes more than $20/hr in value to their employer. It's visible in the business practices: California has more McDonald's restaurants than any other state[1], and franchisees aren't running a charity. This law is the result of a compromise, as much as individual franchise owners may wish to portray otherwise[2]. If they're currently profitable and feel as though they can compromise at $20/hr, then I feel confident in claiming that they're realizing more than $20/hr in average employee labor value. > But even if they did: why should the employer be forced to pay them more, when the job itself is unskilled and therefore has a surplus of folks demanding the position, even at their current rates of pay? One good reason is to close an implicit subsidy: in states with high living costs, employees who require social services while continuing to work amount to an implicit labor subsidy on the government's part. I don't know about you, but I don't think the government should artificially depress wages like that. [1]: https://www.scrapehero.com/location-reports/McDonalds-USA/ https://www.scrapehero.com/location-reports/McDonalds-USA/ [2]: https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/financing/mcdonalds-franchisees-are-angry-over-california-compromise https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/financing/mcdonalds...
- hellojesus 3y ago
  > I don't know about you, but I don't think the government should artificially depress wages like that. I agree. I don't think the government should provide any welfare services. Just as I don't think they should artificially skew market equilibrium through minimum wage or rent controls.
  - woodruffw 3y ago
    I don't agree with that. This isn't a place where I find mathematical balance interesting; minimum wages exist to protect those who would otherwise be forced into indigence by the power asymmetry in their bargaining abilities. Similarly, we provide a safety net to minimize indigence that would otherwise have significant external negative costs. Cruelty is only cheap at the margin; the state provides a valuable service by making it illegal to externalize cruelty's costs.
    - hellojesus 3y ago
      > Cruelty is only cheap at the margin; the state provides a valuable service by making it illegal to externalize cruelty's costs. We have opposing views, and that's okay. I believe that private charity should be the mechanism utilized to reduce the external costs of cruelty. It generates the most efficient solutions, and allows each person to maximize the utility of their givings. I believe the government mandated solution is inefficient and often robs people of their charitable purchasing power.
      - woodruffw 3y ago
        Okay. We’re well off the topic at this point, so we can leave it at that.
      - jkubicek 3y ago
        > It generates the most efficient solutions This feels obviously untrue to me, I'd love to hear your argument for why you think it's true. I have no economic reason to donate, the most efficient solution for me personally is to give $0 to charity. If we decide, as a country, that it's important for our brothers and sisters to not starve to death, it seems to me that the most efficient system is one that's centralized, evidence-based, and supported by mandatory contributions.
        hellojesus 3y ago
        > It generates the most efficient solutions >> I have no economic reason to donate, the most efficient solution for me personally is to give $0 to charity. So we agree that you were able to increase the efficiency of your capital expenditure by not giving to charity. That is an increase in the efficiency of capital allocation over the taxation approach. > If we decide, as a country, that it's important for our brothers and sisters to not starve to death, it seems to me that the most efficient system is one that's centralized, evidence-based, and supported by mandatory contributions. Now you're contradicting the $0 charitable allocation. If you want to prevent starvation, then your optimal charitable contributions would be nonzero. All society does in your example is force everyone to give to a cause that not everyone may want to give to. You're able to lower your contribution to the cause by forcing your neighbor to give to it under threat of violence. This is the problem I have with welfare, and this situation is known as "tyranny of the majority," which is what the republic US system sought to avoid.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

woodruffw 3y ago

> I reject your assertion that an employee clearly realizes more than $20/hr in value to their employer. It's visible in the business practices: California has more McDonald's restaurants than any other state[1], and franchisees aren't running a charity. This law is the result of a compromise, as much as individual franchise owners may wish to portray otherwise[2]. If they're currently profitable and feel as though they can compromise at $20/hr, then I feel confident in claiming that they're realizing more than $20/hr in average employee labor value. > But even if they did: why should the employer be forced to pay them more, when the job itself is unskilled and therefore has a surplus of folks demanding the position, even at their current rates of pay? One good reason is to close an implicit subsidy: in states with high living costs, employees who require social services while continuing to work amount to an implicit labor subsidy on the government's part. I don't know about you, but I don't think the government should artificially depress wages like that. [1]: https://www.scrapehero.com/location-reports/McDonalds-USA/ https://www.scrapehero.com/location-reports/McDonalds-USA/ [2]: https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/financing/mcdonalds-franchisees-are-angry-over-california-compromise https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/financing/mcdonalds...

hellojesus 3y ago
> I don't know about you, but I don't think the government should artificially depress wages like that. I agree. I don't think the government should provide any welfare services. Just as I don't think they should artificially skew market equilibrium through minimum wage or rent controls.
- woodruffw 3y ago
  I don't agree with that. This isn't a place where I find mathematical balance interesting; minimum wages exist to protect those who would otherwise be forced into indigence by the power asymmetry in their bargaining abilities. Similarly, we provide a safety net to minimize indigence that would otherwise have significant external negative costs. Cruelty is only cheap at the margin; the state provides a valuable service by making it illegal to externalize cruelty's costs.
  - hellojesus 3y ago
    > Cruelty is only cheap at the margin; the state provides a valuable service by making it illegal to externalize cruelty's costs. We have opposing views, and that's okay. I believe that private charity should be the mechanism utilized to reduce the external costs of cruelty. It generates the most efficient solutions, and allows each person to maximize the utility of their givings. I believe the government mandated solution is inefficient and often robs people of their charitable purchasing power.
    - woodruffw 3y ago
      Okay. We’re well off the topic at this point, so we can leave it at that.
    - jkubicek 3y ago
      > It generates the most efficient solutions This feels obviously untrue to me, I'd love to hear your argument for why you think it's true. I have no economic reason to donate, the most efficient solution for me personally is to give $0 to charity. If we decide, as a country, that it's important for our brothers and sisters to not starve to death, it seems to me that the most efficient system is one that's centralized, evidence-based, and supported by mandatory contributions.
      - hellojesus 3y ago
        > It generates the most efficient solutions >> I have no economic reason to donate, the most efficient solution for me personally is to give $0 to charity. So we agree that you were able to increase the efficiency of your capital expenditure by not giving to charity. That is an increase in the efficiency of capital allocation over the taxation approach. > If we decide, as a country, that it's important for our brothers and sisters to not starve to death, it seems to me that the most efficient system is one that's centralized, evidence-based, and supported by mandatory contributions. Now you're contradicting the $0 charitable allocation. If you want to prevent starvation, then your optimal charitable contributions would be nonzero. All society does in your example is force everyone to give to a cause that not everyone may want to give to. You're able to lower your contribution to the cause by forcing your neighbor to give to it under threat of violence. This is the problem I have with welfare, and this situation is known as "tyranny of the majority," which is what the republic US system sought to avoid.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]