4 ms·

> A living minimum wage. Meh. The idea that "people should be able to earn a living wage" is fine but does not always imply that it should be illegal to work f

> A living minimum wage. Meh. The idea that "people should be able to earn a living wage" is fine but does not always imply that it should be illegal to work for less, and structuring the economy such that this is the case can have ill effects too: it can eliminate entry-level positions and worsen unemployment, which seriously damages one's ability to improve his career later. It also impacts youths and retirees, neither of whom are working as their primary means of support, and community organizations/nonprofits who might benefit from time to time from a little more manpower than a pure volunteer solution might be able to provide. Economic growth, and the employment opportunities it affords, are a far better way to improve economic opportunities than legislation is.

gohrt 11y ago
> It can eliminate entry-level positions and worsen unemployment, which seriously damages one's ability to improve his career later. > It also impacts youths and retirees, neither of whom are working as their primary means of support These are old canards. The law already has adequate provision for limiting laws to the 21-65 age bracket, for probationary periods of employment, and for discounting wages based on value provided by the employer (example: students pay tuition for education, of which a large component is actually labor).
nosuchthing 11y ago
Yes that's what the robber barons keep repeating, but why not think of businesses and employee wages in terms of percentage of the profits generated? Fast food employees earning $15 an hour can still be profitable [ http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/28/pf/north_dakota_jobs/ http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/28/pf/north_dakota_jobs/ ]
- fennecfoxen 11y ago
  > Yes that's what the robber barons keep repeating, Screw the robber barons - and, while you're at it, screw the progressive politicians and labor unions too. This is what the goddamn labor economists keep repeating.
  - warfangle 11y ago
    Except the ones that are well regarded, as pointed out by a reply to your post by mattybrennan ....
- bluedino 11y ago
  Don't forget in the oil towns that pay $11+/hour for fast food workers, the menu prices are 30% higher as well
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    Yeah, and in those towns, rent is insanely high for the area as well. Is that because fast food workers are being paid $11+/hour? Or is it possibly that the managers know that the oil people have crazy amounts of money, and they're trying to squeeze as much of it out of the oil people as they can?
- brianwawok 11y ago
  True, but what happens if $15 is the break even point between having a robot do the job vs a human? Did we just help the minimum wage works by dumping all of their jobs and replacing with a fleet of robots and 1 high paid robot fixer? I am all for the end goal of let the robots do the work, give everyone goods, ala Star Trek.. but not sure on the way to get there. Something has to fundamentally change. Is it the 40 hour workweek? Is it living wage?
  - nosuchthing 11y ago
    Structure to economic systems — segment basic needs (food, housing, education, transportation) as provided with "basic income credit", separate from the normal cash economy of WANTs and luxuries.
  - prawn 11y ago
    Maybe a combination? I wonder if the privatisation of utilities might come back to bite countries (further) in that it removes an angle to solving these problems. Perhaps the risk of a living wage (influx of freeloaders for one thing) is reduced if the provision is more in terms of basic rights like power for heating, cooling and cooking, water for drinking, washing and cleaning, and communication (base-level internet/wi-fi). Ideally extend it to basic food rights. I would like to see far more done to reduce costs of sourcing/cooking healthy food as a base-level option for people. Might be achieved through density (compactus-style growing sleeves), layering (underground growing), robotics, automated transport (self-driving trucks), etc.
mattybrennan 11y ago
Allowing workers to be paid less doesn't result in more jobs, it just results in more profits for fewer people. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21586578-americas-income-inequality-growing-again-time-cut-subsidies-rich-and-invest http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21586578-americas-inco... http://www.pkarchive.org/cranks/LivingWage.html http://www.pkarchive.org/cranks/LivingWage.html > This theoretical prediction has, however, been hard to confirm with actual data. Indeed, much-cited studies by two well-regarded labor economists, David Card and Alan Krueger, find that where there have been more or less controlled experiments, for example when New Jersey raised minimum wages but Pennsylvania did not, the effects of the increase on employment have been negligible or even positive. Exactly what to make of this result is a source of great dispute. Card and Krueger offered some complex theoretical rationales, but most of their colleagues are unconvinced; the centrist view is probably that minimum wages "do," in fact, reduce employment, but that the effects are small and swamped by other forces.
- tosseraccount 11y ago
  the increase on employment have been negligible or even positive Very interesting. So the supply curve is sloped the other way than what microeconomic theory supposed? Really?
s73v3r 11y ago
I'm sorry, but I don't buy any of that for a second. Further, youth employment should not be considered more important than the employment of people who DO need to support themselves.

gohrt 11y ago

> It can eliminate entry-level positions and worsen unemployment, which seriously damages one's ability to improve his career later. > It also impacts youths and retirees, neither of whom are working as their primary means of support These are old canards. The law already has adequate provision for limiting laws to the 21-65 age bracket, for probationary periods of employment, and for discounting wages based on value provided by the employer (example: students pay tuition for education, of which a large component is actually labor).

nosuchthing 11y ago

Yes that's what the robber barons keep repeating, but why not think of businesses and employee wages in terms of percentage of the profits generated? Fast food employees earning $15 an hour can still be profitable [ http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/28/pf/north_dakota_jobs/ http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/28/pf/north_dakota_jobs/ ]

fennecfoxen 11y ago
> Yes that's what the robber barons keep repeating, Screw the robber barons - and, while you're at it, screw the progressive politicians and labor unions too. This is what the goddamn labor economists keep repeating.
- warfangle 11y ago
  Except the ones that are well regarded, as pointed out by a reply to your post by mattybrennan ....
bluedino 11y ago
Don't forget in the oil towns that pay $11+/hour for fast food workers, the menu prices are 30% higher as well
- s73v3r 11y ago
  Yeah, and in those towns, rent is insanely high for the area as well. Is that because fast food workers are being paid $11+/hour? Or is it possibly that the managers know that the oil people have crazy amounts of money, and they're trying to squeeze as much of it out of the oil people as they can?
brianwawok 11y ago
True, but what happens if $15 is the break even point between having a robot do the job vs a human? Did we just help the minimum wage works by dumping all of their jobs and replacing with a fleet of robots and 1 high paid robot fixer? I am all for the end goal of let the robots do the work, give everyone goods, ala Star Trek.. but not sure on the way to get there. Something has to fundamentally change. Is it the 40 hour workweek? Is it living wage?
- nosuchthing 11y ago
  Structure to economic systems — segment basic needs (food, housing, education, transportation) as provided with "basic income credit", separate from the normal cash economy of WANTs and luxuries.
- prawn 11y ago
  Maybe a combination? I wonder if the privatisation of utilities might come back to bite countries (further) in that it removes an angle to solving these problems. Perhaps the risk of a living wage (influx of freeloaders for one thing) is reduced if the provision is more in terms of basic rights like power for heating, cooling and cooking, water for drinking, washing and cleaning, and communication (base-level internet/wi-fi). Ideally extend it to basic food rights. I would like to see far more done to reduce costs of sourcing/cooking healthy food as a base-level option for people. Might be achieved through density (compactus-style growing sleeves), layering (underground growing), robotics, automated transport (self-driving trucks), etc.

mattybrennan 11y ago

Allowing workers to be paid less doesn't result in more jobs, it just results in more profits for fewer people. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21586578-americas-income-inequality-growing-again-time-cut-subsidies-rich-and-invest http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21586578-americas-inco... http://www.pkarchive.org/cranks/LivingWage.html http://www.pkarchive.org/cranks/LivingWage.html > This theoretical prediction has, however, been hard to confirm with actual data. Indeed, much-cited studies by two well-regarded labor economists, David Card and Alan Krueger, find that where there have been more or less controlled experiments, for example when New Jersey raised minimum wages but Pennsylvania did not, the effects of the increase on employment have been negligible or even positive. Exactly what to make of this result is a source of great dispute. Card and Krueger offered some complex theoretical rationales, but most of their colleagues are unconvinced; the centrist view is probably that minimum wages "do," in fact, reduce employment, but that the effects are small and swamped by other forces.

tosseraccount 11y ago
the increase on employment have been negligible or even positive Very interesting. So the supply curve is sloped the other way than what microeconomic theory supposed? Really?

s73v3r 11y ago

I'm sorry, but I don't buy any of that for a second. Further, youth employment should not be considered more important than the employment of people who DO need to support themselves.