3 ms·

I agree, but what does that have to do with minimum wage? Raising the minimum wage doesn't necessarily raise people's income. If your labor is not worth more th

I agree, but what does that have to do with minimum wage? Raising the minimum wage doesn't necessarily raise people's income. If your labor is not worth more than $25/h to your employer you'll just lose your job (or never get hired in the first place.) Another problem is that the costs are not spread equally. An industry that employs a lot of low skill workers has to burden a huge amount of the cost of it, whereas a business that automates all their employees doesn't have to pay a dime. And those costs might pass on to consumers and cause problems, competing with different countries. The better alternative is a basic income (or some variation of it.) Tax everyone, not just the industries that employ lots of workers, include the unemployed in the benefits, and don't create artificial disincentives to hire people.

dan_bk 13y ago
> If your labor is not worth more than $25/h to your employer you'll just lose your job (or never get hired in the first place.) Well, you can always increase the number of jobs in a country by lowering the country's wages. By that logic, the taxpayer ends up footing the bill (via social insurance programs => taxes) that the employer should have paid.
- Houshalter 13y ago
  Wages should be set by supply and demand like everything else. Taxpayers should pay for social programs, it spreads the cost out among the entire economy. Adding additional costs to a person, should a business decide to hire them, just discourages them from hiring and creates all the problems I mentioned above.
pessimizer 13y ago
>Raising the minimum wage doesn't necessarily raise people's income. If your labor is not worth more than $25/h to your employer you'll just lose your job (or never get hired in the first place.) What you're saying here is that raising the minimum wage doesn't necessarily cause a particular person's income to change at the same job that he/she had before. What it does is shift business models that depend on slave labor for their margins. It forces innovation and automation, and the people who can't acquire the skills needed can then rely on a basic income. I don't understand why the government subsidizes margins made on the backs of labor by supplementing their wages with welfare payments. If the government is supporting people, it should be reaping the benefits of their labor rather than private interests. If it can't come up with work that they can do, it should make sure that they're comfortable.
- Houshalter 13y ago
  >What it does is shift business models that depend on slave labor for their margins. It forces innovation and automation Which is a euphemism for saying "they will lay people off and leave them unemployed." There will be some innovation and automation. More likely outsourcing, and the benefits of whatever innovation there is won't go to the unemployed workers. >I don't understand why the government subsidizes margins made on the backs of labor by supplementing their wages with welfare payments. They aren't. The employers are paying their employees the market worth of their labor. The government is providing assistance to those whose market worth isn't that much.

dan_bk 13y ago

> If your labor is not worth more than $25/h to your employer you'll just lose your job (or never get hired in the first place.) Well, you can always increase the number of jobs in a country by lowering the country's wages. By that logic, the taxpayer ends up footing the bill (via social insurance programs => taxes) that the employer should have paid.

Houshalter 13y ago
Wages should be set by supply and demand like everything else. Taxpayers should pay for social programs, it spreads the cost out among the entire economy. Adding additional costs to a person, should a business decide to hire them, just discourages them from hiring and creates all the problems I mentioned above.

pessimizer 13y ago

>Raising the minimum wage doesn't necessarily raise people's income. If your labor is not worth more than $25/h to your employer you'll just lose your job (or never get hired in the first place.) What you're saying here is that raising the minimum wage doesn't necessarily cause a particular person's income to change at the same job that he/she had before. What it does is shift business models that depend on slave labor for their margins. It forces innovation and automation, and the people who can't acquire the skills needed can then rely on a basic income. I don't understand why the government subsidizes margins made on the backs of labor by supplementing their wages with welfare payments. If the government is supporting people, it should be reaping the benefits of their labor rather than private interests. If it can't come up with work that they can do, it should make sure that they're comfortable.

Houshalter 13y ago
>What it does is shift business models that depend on slave labor for their margins. It forces innovation and automation Which is a euphemism for saying "they will lay people off and leave them unemployed." There will be some innovation and automation. More likely outsourcing, and the benefits of whatever innovation there is won't go to the unemployed workers. >I don't understand why the government subsidizes margins made on the backs of labor by supplementing their wages with welfare payments. They aren't. The employers are paying their employees the market worth of their labor. The government is providing assistance to those whose market worth isn't that much.