4 ms·
> If people can get paid the same amount while working half as many days, most of them will work fewer days. Half of people would not be unemployed. I gave a s
by Aunche 3y ago
> If people can get paid the same amount while working half as many days, most of them will work fewer days. Half of people would not be unemployed.
I gave a simple thought experiment, but you're trying to escape making a trade off. Yes, in the real world, people value free time, you can employee people part time, and there are other employers besides Walmart, but that's outside the point I'm trying to make. If we're going for full realism, Walmart would also go bankrupt if they laid off half their workforce and paid the rest twice as much.
- Dylan16807 3y agoI'm not trying to escape the trade-off, I just don't think it teaches us anything we can apply to the real world. If we keep things as simple as possible, and assume those people stay unemployed, then Walmart should make as many jobs as possible at absolute minimum wages, maybe even below the legal limit. But if we're talking about semi-realistic scenarios, then they should not do that.
- Aunche 3y agoWhat I was trying to show is that people have an arbitrary tendency to attribute responsibility to the person who last touched something (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/zTiqHtAQurX35QBAs/repost-the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/zTiqHtAQurX35QBAs/repost-the...). This moral framework can lead to all sorts of suboptimal outcomes, such as employer healthcare mandates that are subsided with tax incentives (though some other interventions, like modest minimum wages can help people without distorting the economy).