9 ms·

> The bottom line for workers: Higher wage floors ultimately raise the earnings of low-income workers and young workers most likely to be impacted by the polici

> The bottom line for workers: Higher wage floors ultimately raise the earnings of low-income workers and young workers most likely to be impacted by the policies by thousands of dollars annually. Further, on average, these workers are no less likely to be employed following the minimum wage increases. But that's not the bottomline. The bottomline is to ask: After a year, do these workers have more disposable income, or does - for example - local housing cost raise and eat up the higher wages?

HarryHirsch 3y ago
The bottomline is to ask: After a year, do these workers have more disposable income, or does - for example - local housing cost raise and eat up the higher wages? What if that was the point of this study - be a submarine for increasing the minimum wage? If has been said that Silicon Valley is a conduit to move VC money to landowners, and here is just more of it.
- firstplacelast 3y ago
  It seems like the best course of action is to tie minimum wage to housing costs (on a per-county or city basis), this would help ensure the ownership class has to balance the costs of assets and labor. If you want cheap labor, housing costs must go down. If you want expensive real estate, labor costs must go up.
  - ctrw 3y ago
    Why not tie housing price to minimum wage? We don't end up in a feed back loop that explode unlike in your example.
  - 20after4 3y ago
    Interesting idea, that actually could work. The biggest issue I could see though is that the people paying labor costs are not necessarily the same people paying wages so putting pressure on one doesn't necessarily get a result from the other.
    - HarryHirsch 3y ago
      Just look at Walmart. They don't offer a living wage, so they fix their employees up with every last social program the locality offers. And as a citizen you don't even get to opt out of that. Ordinarily, when you disagree with any business, the first step would be to boycott it, but you can't, you cannot opt out of your taxes going to food stamps and housing subsidies for those working at Walmart under the living-wage threshold. Especially insidious: work requirement for people on food stamps.
  - Ekaros 3y ago
    Likely means some type of purchase power parity calculation. Now to how big area should the minimum wage apply to is more complicated question. And should it be based on where the job is or where the employee lives.
chgs 3y ago
The U.K. has massively increased minimum wage over he last decade or so, but this has meant people who used to be on 50-100% more than minimum wage are now finding themselves on the same wage as shelf stackers. They are of course now questioning why they bothered to do so much training, incurring debt and lost opportunity, to find everyone on the same wage.
- pseudocomposer 3y ago
  Seems like they need to organize/unionize then, no? Their failure to do so isn’t the “shelf stackers’” fault. If anything, this gives them leverage to get paid more. But they have to use it, because capitalists will never pay someone fairly if they don’t fight for it.
  - ctrw 3y ago
    A job is worth only so much. When wages raise above that amount those jobs disappear. Street sweepers are one example.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- DiscourseFan 3y ago
  Yes, well, many young programmers today are finding it increasingly difficult to find a good job out of school, what with all the new AI tools and general diffusion of the skill across the global population. The skills required to be a "shelf stacker" are generally taught in public schools. What did you think would happen when they started teaching all these kids to program as well? There is a good reason why these giant tech companies kept lobbying for, and creating school programs centered around code-education, and I hope you realize it wasn't purely philanthropic.
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    Exactly. It's an economic *system*. Change X and there is impact not only on W and Y but perhaps also V and Z. So to say, "Look! We raised the min wage and people earned more money. That's the bottomline", is naive at best. Furthermore (re: California), increasing the min wage is not a fix for the housing supply and associated failed policies.
tmoertel 3y ago
But even that isn't the true bottom line. If you want the true bottom line, you have to ask: What is the net effect on utility for the entire population?
- skybrian 3y ago
  That's one zoom level. Another one that's just as relevant is: What is the effect on me, personally? And there are other zoom levels in between. None of these zoom levels are more "true" than the others.
  - selectodude 3y ago
    The government's job is to pass laws that benefit the population at large. They could pass a law saying "skybrian gets $100,000,000/yr" and it would be awesome for you. It would be a stupid law.
    - skybrian 3y ago
      Yes, of course. But which population? Most of us aren't national politicians. A mayor, for example, might be more interested in what the effect is for their city.
    - ijijijjij 3y ago
      Its job is also to protect minorities...
    - randomdata 3y ago
      The government’s job is to pass laws that the people asked for. While it is reasonable to think that the population will act in its own self-interest, that is not a requirement.
      - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y ago
        > The government’s job is to pass laws that the people asked for Many governments appear to have lost their way...or more likely they just define "the people" as the folks who donate to their next campaign.

HarryHirsch 3y ago

The bottomline is to ask: After a year, do these workers have more disposable income, or does - for example - local housing cost raise and eat up the higher wages? What if that was the point of this study - be a submarine for increasing the minimum wage? If has been said that Silicon Valley is a conduit to move VC money to landowners, and here is just more of it.

firstplacelast 3y ago
It seems like the best course of action is to tie minimum wage to housing costs (on a per-county or city basis), this would help ensure the ownership class has to balance the costs of assets and labor. If you want cheap labor, housing costs must go down. If you want expensive real estate, labor costs must go up.
- ctrw 3y ago
  Why not tie housing price to minimum wage? We don't end up in a feed back loop that explode unlike in your example.
- 20after4 3y ago
  Interesting idea, that actually could work. The biggest issue I could see though is that the people paying labor costs are not necessarily the same people paying wages so putting pressure on one doesn't necessarily get a result from the other.
  - HarryHirsch 3y ago
    Just look at Walmart. They don't offer a living wage, so they fix their employees up with every last social program the locality offers. And as a citizen you don't even get to opt out of that. Ordinarily, when you disagree with any business, the first step would be to boycott it, but you can't, you cannot opt out of your taxes going to food stamps and housing subsidies for those working at Walmart under the living-wage threshold. Especially insidious: work requirement for people on food stamps.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  Likely means some type of purchase power parity calculation. Now to how big area should the minimum wage apply to is more complicated question. And should it be based on where the job is or where the employee lives.

chgs 3y ago

The U.K. has massively increased minimum wage over he last decade or so, but this has meant people who used to be on 50-100% more than minimum wage are now finding themselves on the same wage as shelf stackers. They are of course now questioning why they bothered to do so much training, incurring debt and lost opportunity, to find everyone on the same wage.

pseudocomposer 3y ago
Seems like they need to organize/unionize then, no? Their failure to do so isn’t the “shelf stackers’” fault. If anything, this gives them leverage to get paid more. But they have to use it, because capitalists will never pay someone fairly if they don’t fight for it.
- ctrw 3y ago
  A job is worth only so much. When wages raise above that amount those jobs disappear. Street sweepers are one example.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
DiscourseFan 3y ago
Yes, well, many young programmers today are finding it increasingly difficult to find a good job out of school, what with all the new AI tools and general diffusion of the skill across the global population. The skills required to be a "shelf stacker" are generally taught in public schools. What did you think would happen when they started teaching all these kids to program as well? There is a good reason why these giant tech companies kept lobbying for, and creating school programs centered around code-education, and I hope you realize it wasn't purely philanthropic.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  Exactly. It's an economic *system*. Change X and there is impact not only on W and Y but perhaps also V and Z. So to say, "Look! We raised the min wage and people earned more money. That's the bottomline", is naive at best. Furthermore (re: California), increasing the min wage is not a fix for the housing supply and associated failed policies.

tmoertel 3y ago

But even that isn't the true bottom line. If you want the true bottom line, you have to ask: What is the net effect on utility for the entire population?

skybrian 3y ago
That's one zoom level. Another one that's just as relevant is: What is the effect on me, personally? And there are other zoom levels in between. None of these zoom levels are more "true" than the others.
- selectodude 3y ago
  The government's job is to pass laws that benefit the population at large. They could pass a law saying "skybrian gets $100,000,000/yr" and it would be awesome for you. It would be a stupid law.
  - skybrian 3y ago
    Yes, of course. But which population? Most of us aren't national politicians. A mayor, for example, might be more interested in what the effect is for their city.
  - ijijijjij 3y ago
    Its job is also to protect minorities...
  - randomdata 3y ago
    The government’s job is to pass laws that the people asked for. While it is reasonable to think that the population will act in its own self-interest, that is not a requirement.
    - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y ago
      > The government’s job is to pass laws that the people asked for Many governments appear to have lost their way...or more likely they just define "the people" as the folks who donate to their next campaign.