6 ms·

The posts here are quite funny to read for me. Specifically the idea of 'maybe this job shouldn't exist, if it can't pay a fair wage'. Minimum wage is really

The posts here are quite funny to read for me. Specifically the idea of 'maybe this job shouldn't exist, if it can't pay a fair wage'. Minimum wage is really not a fair wage. In the UK, double minimum is getting close in some cities. In London, triple minimum wage is still essentially a child's salary, good for renting and playing around but not for building an actual life - state assistance is essentially required. If you eliminate jobs that do not pay fairly (I think that the faint possibility of ever being able to do anything but work and/or suck on the State's teat is a reasonable definition of fair), there will either be nothing left for most of the population, or huge wage increases. I don't know which. I actually think it's worth the gamble, then we can actually deal with what unemployment (and the euphemism-tastic 'underemployment') actually means.

tjr 11y ago
Without taking the time to do actual research, I would imagine that a lot of minimum wage jobs either already are, or easily could be, done part-time. In that case, they would not necessarily be held by people otherwise unemployed. It's conceivable that someone could hold a full-time office job that pays amply for their living expenses, and work a few nights a week at a retail store to help save up money for luxuries.
- Avshalom 11y ago
  Just of the top of my head, I don't know how reliable the EPI is but: http://www.epi.org/publication/low-wage-workers-are-older-than-you-think/ http://www.epi.org/publication/low-wage-workers-are-older-th...
Bostonian 11y ago
"Fair wage" is a meaningless concept. If one person is willing to pay $X for a job and another person is willing to do it for that price, other people should butt out.
- whyaduck 11y ago
  Define "willing".
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  That's wrong more often than not. Usually, "voluntary trade" is not really voluntary for one of the parties involved.
- xnull6guest 11y ago
  The problem is when there are confluences of conditions that systemically prevent someone (or their 'class') from having the mobility to exit their condition, even when they have enough merit to otherwise warrant it. Take for example indentured servitude, or third world sweat shops. Sure, working for $0.28 a day in a (dangerous, unsanitary) factory is better than subsistence farming. But if this opportunity is enough to feed a family but not enough to lift the family from a condition whereby it can exit from needing to work in the factory, how is this so very different from perpetuated servitude? Take serfs. While serfs were 'bound to the land', the condition of the serf was voluntary and mutually beneficial: Wikipedia reads "Serfs who occupied a plot of land were required to work for the Lord of the Manor who owned that land, and in return were entitled to protection, justice and the right to exploit certain fields within the manor to maintain their own subsistence." Certainly it was a better deal for the serf to labor underneath a lord than live in the wild - especially since all fertile lands had already been captured by lords. And indeed, you see the language and argumentation during the time period repeat a variant of your argument: both the serf and the lord benefit from the situation and therefore it is good. Similarly, whites made similar arguments about black slavery throughout the history of American slave trade. But a situation where both parties have no benefit by changing their 'local' stratety by small amounts represents a local Nash-like equilibria at the best - and not anything one could argue is a 'global' optimum. And in fact, if one truly buys that markets are meritocratic, one should be willing to subsidize the equality of opportunity so that as many people start off on an even footing as possible. In sum this is to say that, like Braess's Paradox, locally rational decisions lead to local but not global maxima - whose gaps can be seen to be gigantic from history. When we discuss opportunities for labor, wealth and quality of life, this becomes an ethics question. It is not so clear, at least to me, that the principle of trade (especially given its other major problems not covered here) should be prioritized over ethical considerations. Quandaries like this do lead us to ask what sorts of wages and opportunities are 'fair'.
jaytagdamian 11y ago
£18 an hour? Not bad money for London - that's £34k or $57k... More than most.
- stegosaurus 11y ago
  That's exactly my point. 'More than most'. No-one seems to be able to discuss this rationally because they consider it normal and natural for everyone to be poor, serfs, renting from a lord. £34k is great, for a child. 25K or so after tax and student loan. A 1 BR flat costs almost ten times that. It is a great starting salary. A progression point. Perhaps OK for a couple, both earning the same, just about. (Not really, they still can't afford a flat, never mind anything suitable for a family).

tjr 11y ago

Without taking the time to do actual research, I would imagine that a lot of minimum wage jobs either already are, or easily could be, done part-time. In that case, they would not necessarily be held by people otherwise unemployed. It's conceivable that someone could hold a full-time office job that pays amply for their living expenses, and work a few nights a week at a retail store to help save up money for luxuries.

Avshalom 11y ago
Just of the top of my head, I don't know how reliable the EPI is but: http://www.epi.org/publication/low-wage-workers-are-older-than-you-think/ http://www.epi.org/publication/low-wage-workers-are-older-th...

Bostonian 11y ago

"Fair wage" is a meaningless concept. If one person is willing to pay $X for a job and another person is willing to do it for that price, other people should butt out.

whyaduck 11y ago
Define "willing".
TeMPOraL 11y ago
That's wrong more often than not. Usually, "voluntary trade" is not really voluntary for one of the parties involved.
xnull6guest 11y ago
The problem is when there are confluences of conditions that systemically prevent someone (or their 'class') from having the mobility to exit their condition, even when they have enough merit to otherwise warrant it. Take for example indentured servitude, or third world sweat shops. Sure, working for $0.28 a day in a (dangerous, unsanitary) factory is better than subsistence farming. But if this opportunity is enough to feed a family but not enough to lift the family from a condition whereby it can exit from needing to work in the factory, how is this so very different from perpetuated servitude? Take serfs. While serfs were 'bound to the land', the condition of the serf was voluntary and mutually beneficial: Wikipedia reads "Serfs who occupied a plot of land were required to work for the Lord of the Manor who owned that land, and in return were entitled to protection, justice and the right to exploit certain fields within the manor to maintain their own subsistence." Certainly it was a better deal for the serf to labor underneath a lord than live in the wild - especially since all fertile lands had already been captured by lords. And indeed, you see the language and argumentation during the time period repeat a variant of your argument: both the serf and the lord benefit from the situation and therefore it is good. Similarly, whites made similar arguments about black slavery throughout the history of American slave trade. But a situation where both parties have no benefit by changing their 'local' stratety by small amounts represents a local Nash-like equilibria at the best - and not anything one could argue is a 'global' optimum. And in fact, if one truly buys that markets are meritocratic, one should be willing to subsidize the equality of opportunity so that as many people start off on an even footing as possible. In sum this is to say that, like Braess's Paradox, locally rational decisions lead to local but not global maxima - whose gaps can be seen to be gigantic from history. When we discuss opportunities for labor, wealth and quality of life, this becomes an ethics question. It is not so clear, at least to me, that the principle of trade (especially given its other major problems not covered here) should be prioritized over ethical considerations. Quandaries like this do lead us to ask what sorts of wages and opportunities are 'fair'.

jaytagdamian 11y ago

£18 an hour? Not bad money for London - that's £34k or $57k... More than most.

stegosaurus 11y ago
That's exactly my point. 'More than most'. No-one seems to be able to discuss this rationally because they consider it normal and natural for everyone to be poor, serfs, renting from a lord. £34k is great, for a child. 25K or so after tax and student loan. A 1 BR flat costs almost ten times that. It is a great starting salary. A progression point. Perhaps OK for a couple, both earning the same, just about. (Not really, they still can't afford a flat, never mind anything suitable for a family).