4 ms·

When people claim that minimum wage laws don't hurt workers, there's an implicit assumption that the jobs would always exist anyway, and costs will just be pass

When people claim that minimum wage laws don't hurt workers, there's an implicit assumption that the jobs would always exist anyway, and costs will just be passed on. Sometimes that may be true. Other times, you're just getting rid of a certain class of jobs.

rootusrootus 3y ago
When I visit Hyderabad I'm reminded how nice it is to have an underclass, provided you are not a member of that class. Many services are practically free compared to the US. Not sure I think we should create that here, though. Edit: Wow, judging from downvotes it seems there are some folks here on HN that would like that underclass! Interesting!
- AJ007 3y ago
  Minimum wages serve a political purpose, but they also force automation on an economy. One can study various countries which had very cheap labor pre-1900, and see how far behind they got (e.g. China.) What would the global economy look like without cheap labor? One can only guess.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Cupertino95014 3y ago
  Maybe you should ask one of these gig workers if they feel better off now than before? Instead of making spurious comparisons to Hyderabad.
kevingadd 3y ago
I've seen enough stories about how gig workers struggle to actually turn a profit thanks to all the costs that get offloaded onto them, so I don't know that 'getting rid of a certain class of jobs' is automatically a bad thing.
- floatrock 3y ago
  Yeah, that's the tricky part that this seems to come down to. A decision was made that a slave-wage is undesirable/illegal, so the wage-slave job goes away. The argument is about do you believe people should decide for themselves that the wage-slave job is better than nothing, or should the government dictate that we don't tolerate wage-slaves by slave-wages here. It gets messy because the "people should decide" message shares the same outcome as "corporates get richer", so strong incentive for the latter to amplify the former. This whole story echos those union fights in our history textbooks.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  If these people didn’t turn a profit no one would do the jobs, as they’d be losing money in each order. They may not be happy with that profit, but it’s a profitable gig
- NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
  >how gig workers struggle to actually turn a profit thanks to all the costs that get offloaded onto them, Well, OK, I guess they could not do that then? McDonalds is hiring in NYC and paying a minimum of $16 an hour. I do feel for people in that situation, but they're just getting greased in the collision between, on the one side, techno-utopian companies that want to bring in automation ASAP to eliminate their jobs and, on the other, big labor that is threatened by the gig-economy model and believes the better outcome is just for the jobs not to exist. I'm pretty sure that the participants in the gig economy just wanted it to pay a bit better, rather than for it to get annihilated. I guess you find out who your friends really are.
sgift 3y ago
I cannot read the original article (seems to be blocked in the EU? I get access denied), but since this is a general comment: If the only reason that a job could exist was that people had another job and/or got government subsidy this means the job shouldn't exist - it's not societies' job to support bad companies. So, if they "just go away" that's okay. Give the people who don't have a job now government support and training to get a better job. At least the companies who tried to get rich by exploiting people stop existing then.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- thrill 3y ago
  You say "it's not societies' job to support bad companies" and " Give the people who don't have a job now government support and training to get a better job". Do you not see the contradictions? Who is paying for that "government" support and training? Taxpayers have money for taxes because they work for a profit - else they cease to exist, or to appease the economically illiterate the politicians run societies into such debt that everyone (including those dastardly "exploitive companies") ceases to exist.
  - xethos 3y ago
    It's a government handout either way, but the former goes on indefinitely for an individual (while also putting downward pressure on other workers), while the latter (ideally) increases earning potential - improving the workers lot, the tax base for the government, and the workers ability to patronise other local businesses

rootusrootus 3y ago

When I visit Hyderabad I'm reminded how nice it is to have an underclass, provided you are not a member of that class. Many services are practically free compared to the US. Not sure I think we should create that here, though. Edit: Wow, judging from downvotes it seems there are some folks here on HN that would like that underclass! Interesting!

AJ007 3y ago
Minimum wages serve a political purpose, but they also force automation on an economy. One can study various countries which had very cheap labor pre-1900, and see how far behind they got (e.g. China.) What would the global economy look like without cheap labor? One can only guess.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Cupertino95014 3y ago
Maybe you should ask one of these gig workers if they feel better off now than before? Instead of making spurious comparisons to Hyderabad.

kevingadd 3y ago

I've seen enough stories about how gig workers struggle to actually turn a profit thanks to all the costs that get offloaded onto them, so I don't know that 'getting rid of a certain class of jobs' is automatically a bad thing.

floatrock 3y ago
Yeah, that's the tricky part that this seems to come down to. A decision was made that a slave-wage is undesirable/illegal, so the wage-slave job goes away. The argument is about do you believe people should decide for themselves that the wage-slave job is better than nothing, or should the government dictate that we don't tolerate wage-slaves by slave-wages here. It gets messy because the "people should decide" message shares the same outcome as "corporates get richer", so strong incentive for the latter to amplify the former. This whole story echos those union fights in our history textbooks.
edgyquant 3y ago
If these people didn’t turn a profit no one would do the jobs, as they’d be losing money in each order. They may not be happy with that profit, but it’s a profitable gig
NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
>how gig workers struggle to actually turn a profit thanks to all the costs that get offloaded onto them, Well, OK, I guess they could not do that then? McDonalds is hiring in NYC and paying a minimum of $16 an hour. I do feel for people in that situation, but they're just getting greased in the collision between, on the one side, techno-utopian companies that want to bring in automation ASAP to eliminate their jobs and, on the other, big labor that is threatened by the gig-economy model and believes the better outcome is just for the jobs not to exist. I'm pretty sure that the participants in the gig economy just wanted it to pay a bit better, rather than for it to get annihilated. I guess you find out who your friends really are.

sgift 3y ago

I cannot read the original article (seems to be blocked in the EU? I get access denied), but since this is a general comment: If the only reason that a job could exist was that people had another job and/or got government subsidy this means the job shouldn't exist - it's not societies' job to support bad companies. So, if they "just go away" that's okay. Give the people who don't have a job now government support and training to get a better job. At least the companies who tried to get rich by exploiting people stop existing then.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
thrill 3y ago
You say "it's not societies' job to support bad companies" and " Give the people who don't have a job now government support and training to get a better job". Do you not see the contradictions? Who is paying for that "government" support and training? Taxpayers have money for taxes because they work for a profit - else they cease to exist, or to appease the economically illiterate the politicians run societies into such debt that everyone (including those dastardly "exploitive companies") ceases to exist.
- xethos 3y ago
  It's a government handout either way, but the former goes on indefinitely for an individual (while also putting downward pressure on other workers), while the latter (ideally) increases earning potential - improving the workers lot, the tax base for the government, and the workers ability to patronise other local businesses