3 ms·

The amount of work to be done doesn't change as a function of how much workers are paid. Whether the work can be profitably done certainly can change. Arguing

The amount of work to be done doesn't change as a function of how much workers are paid. Whether the work can be profitably done certainly can change. Arguing that the minimum wage causes meaningful increase in unemployment is just as silly as arguing that paying CEOs huge salaries does. Could we make it $50/hour with no employment effects? You can argue that a minimum wage makes things more expensive: that's likely true, but I'm okay with that. Which means the minimum wage is indirect welfare that redistributes money to low-skilled workers by taking it from some combination of business owners, employees, and customers. That's strictly less efficient than just giving low-income workers extra money, especially since many of the customers now facing higher prices are themselves poor. I agree though that we as taxpayers should not be required to subsidize corporations unwilling to pay employees livable wages. This has never made any sense to me. If Walmart pays a cashier $10/hour, they're helping him more than you are, but somehow they're the bad guy.

jcalvinowens 12y ago
> Could we make it $50/hour with no employment effects? No, of course not. Nobody is asking for that. > Which means the minimum wage is indirect welfare that redistributes money to low-skilled workers by taking it from some combination of business owners, employees, and customers. That's a stretch... If raising the minimum wage caused a dollar-for-dollar increase in the price of everything then yes, but that would only occur in a business who's only major expense is unskilled labor, and even there it wouldn't be equal to the rise in wage. And for a low-income person, housing is a major expense that has a negligible labor component built into it. > If Walmart pays a cashier $10/hour, they're helping him more than you are, but somehow they're the bad guy. If people at Wal-Mart work and don't have enough money, and then they get welfare in order to make ends meet, that's you and I subsidizing Wal-Mart. I would rather that extra money for the worker come out of Wal-Mart's profits than your and my taxes.

jcalvinowens 12y ago

> Could we make it $50/hour with no employment effects? No, of course not. Nobody is asking for that. > Which means the minimum wage is indirect welfare that redistributes money to low-skilled workers by taking it from some combination of business owners, employees, and customers. That's a stretch... If raising the minimum wage caused a dollar-for-dollar increase in the price of everything then yes, but that would only occur in a business who's only major expense is unskilled labor, and even there it wouldn't be equal to the rise in wage. And for a low-income person, housing is a major expense that has a negligible labor component built into it. > If Walmart pays a cashier $10/hour, they're helping him more than you are, but somehow they're the bad guy. If people at Wal-Mart work and don't have enough money, and then they get welfare in order to make ends meet, that's you and I subsidizing Wal-Mart. I would rather that extra money for the worker come out of Wal-Mart's profits than your and my taxes.