5 ms·

While it's repeated ad nauseam, this was the intended purpose of the minimum wage, as quoted by FDR who signed the minimum wage into law: “It seems to me to be

While it's repeated ad nauseam, this was the intended purpose of the minimum wage, as quoted by FDR who signed the minimum wage into law: “It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.”

npoc 3y ago
It seems to be another case of naïve, clumsy legislation causing more problems than it solves.
- kimbernator 3y ago
  I don't mean to make assumptions about your life or your conditions, but in scenario A you describe a reality where there are a meaningful number of people who would be content to sell their labor for less than $7.25 per hour. I do not find this believable, given how little that amount is in today's dollars. At the point that you're okay with working for, say, $5/hour, why work at all? What lifestyle permits that as an income? What percentage of people do you believe would be okay with this? Additionally, you are describing an effect where removal of the minimum wage would result in more people working, but what of the wages of people who currently work for minimum wage? Clearly the jobs are economical at that rate, but I have a hard time believing that employers paying $7.25/hour would continue doing so if they weren't legally required to. I would be willing to wager my life savings that the loss in income associated with that would dwarf the amount of money being made by the hypothetical class of people you're describing.
  - npoc 3y ago
    In the case of most US states, I think it's fair to say that the minimum wage is moot. As you say, hardly anyone would consider working for less than that anyway. But why take away their freedom to do so?
    - rhcom2 3y ago
      Well I think for one there is a power imbalance between employees and employers that seems primed for abuse without some regulatory minimum. Also is the goal to maximize the number in the workflow, or get people out of poverty? Having them work for less may increase employment figures but they'll still be in poverty. The minimum wage has shown to decrease employment but also lift the people employed out of poverty [1]. 1. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-02/56975-Minimum-Wage.pdf https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-02/56975-Minimum-Wage....
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > Well I think for one there is a power imbalance between employees and employers that seems primed for abuse without some regulatory minimum. If some employer is currently paying e.g. $10/hour when the minimum wage is $7.25/hour, why would that change if the minimum wage were $5/hour or $0? If anything they might have to pay more, because the employee might prefer a job paying $5/hour to one that pays $10/hour but incurs $6/hour worth of commuting expense and then the original employer would have to pay $11/hour to retain them. > Also is the goal to maximize the number in the workflow, or get people out of poverty? These are not unrelated goals. Generally people who can't find work end up in poverty. > The minimum wage has shown to decrease employment but also lift the people employed out of poverty You don't need a study for this, it's exactly what you would expect to happen. If you raise the minimum wage to $10, some jobs that pay $9 are still sustainable at $10, so those pay $10, some aren't, so those people lose their jobs. The proportionality of each one is going to depend on current economic conditions and not be a universal constant. But the part where you cause people to lose their jobs is bad -- in some cases it will exceed the entire benefit of the remaining people getting paid more, but either way what it's competing with isn't placebo, it's alternative policies to get people out of poverty. Why would you do the one that causes people to lose their jobs when there are several alternatives that don't?
    - kimbernator 3y ago
      No freedoms are being taken away, save for those of businesses that would like to increase their margins by paying their workers less. These fictional people who would love to work for less than $7.25/hr are free to do gig work that nets them less. They are also free to panhandle on the side of freeway off-ramps, which I imagine many would prefer to the concept of being paid $5/hour to take orders from a person who lacks enough respect for their fellow man to pay them more than that. The removal of the minimum wage would simply be a gift to employers taken from the pockets of actual workers. Businesses don't just pay the minimum wage out of the kindness of their hearts; to pay that wage is code for "I would pay you less if I could."
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- skeaker 3y ago
  Works on my machine

npoc 3y ago

It seems to be another case of naïve, clumsy legislation causing more problems than it solves.

kimbernator 3y ago
I don't mean to make assumptions about your life or your conditions, but in scenario A you describe a reality where there are a meaningful number of people who would be content to sell their labor for less than $7.25 per hour. I do not find this believable, given how little that amount is in today's dollars. At the point that you're okay with working for, say, $5/hour, why work at all? What lifestyle permits that as an income? What percentage of people do you believe would be okay with this? Additionally, you are describing an effect where removal of the minimum wage would result in more people working, but what of the wages of people who currently work for minimum wage? Clearly the jobs are economical at that rate, but I have a hard time believing that employers paying $7.25/hour would continue doing so if they weren't legally required to. I would be willing to wager my life savings that the loss in income associated with that would dwarf the amount of money being made by the hypothetical class of people you're describing.
- npoc 3y ago
  In the case of most US states, I think it's fair to say that the minimum wage is moot. As you say, hardly anyone would consider working for less than that anyway. But why take away their freedom to do so?
  - rhcom2 3y ago
    Well I think for one there is a power imbalance between employees and employers that seems primed for abuse without some regulatory minimum. Also is the goal to maximize the number in the workflow, or get people out of poverty? Having them work for less may increase employment figures but they'll still be in poverty. The minimum wage has shown to decrease employment but also lift the people employed out of poverty [1]. 1. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-02/56975-Minimum-Wage.pdf https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-02/56975-Minimum-Wage....
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > Well I think for one there is a power imbalance between employees and employers that seems primed for abuse without some regulatory minimum. If some employer is currently paying e.g. $10/hour when the minimum wage is $7.25/hour, why would that change if the minimum wage were $5/hour or $0? If anything they might have to pay more, because the employee might prefer a job paying $5/hour to one that pays $10/hour but incurs $6/hour worth of commuting expense and then the original employer would have to pay $11/hour to retain them. > Also is the goal to maximize the number in the workflow, or get people out of poverty? These are not unrelated goals. Generally people who can't find work end up in poverty. > The minimum wage has shown to decrease employment but also lift the people employed out of poverty You don't need a study for this, it's exactly what you would expect to happen. If you raise the minimum wage to $10, some jobs that pay $9 are still sustainable at $10, so those pay $10, some aren't, so those people lose their jobs. The proportionality of each one is going to depend on current economic conditions and not be a universal constant. But the part where you cause people to lose their jobs is bad -- in some cases it will exceed the entire benefit of the remaining people getting paid more, but either way what it's competing with isn't placebo, it's alternative policies to get people out of poverty. Why would you do the one that causes people to lose their jobs when there are several alternatives that don't?
  - kimbernator 3y ago
    No freedoms are being taken away, save for those of businesses that would like to increase their margins by paying their workers less. These fictional people who would love to work for less than $7.25/hr are free to do gig work that nets them less. They are also free to panhandle on the side of freeway off-ramps, which I imagine many would prefer to the concept of being paid $5/hour to take orders from a person who lacks enough respect for their fellow man to pay them more than that. The removal of the minimum wage would simply be a gift to employers taken from the pockets of actual workers. Businesses don't just pay the minimum wage out of the kindness of their hearts; to pay that wage is code for "I would pay you less if I could."
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
skeaker 3y ago
Works on my machine