A ‘very credible’ new study on Seattle’s $15 minimum wage has bad news

Post by manicdee » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 12:12 AM UTC

greggyb wrote: post #96

clavalle wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a person is desperate, 'voluntary' starts to lose all meaning. If you are dead broke and half starved and I offered you a take it or leave it offer to work carrying rocks for $2 an hour so you can get a sandwich and you agree, is that really voluntary? I do agree with you about teenagers and other people that don't need the money in order to live. For dependents and people that agree not to get public assistance…

Yes, it's much better to prevent any employment opportunity for that person. Situation A: I can choose between no employment (bad), and exploitative employment (slightly less bad). Situation B: With the benevolent intention of a minimum wage legislated into existence, I can "choose" no employment (same bad as before). You don't make someone worse off by increasing the number of options. You don't make people better o…

Post by lend000 » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 2:06 AM UTC

coldpie wrote: post #167

rhino369 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether they deserve or it or not doesn't change whether the market will support it. Some people making 10 dollars an hour might get a raise to 13, but some might just get fired. So law decides that someone whose labor is only worth 10 dollars to the market is better off banned from working.

I'm willing to entertain other ideas. If the living wage is X and the minimum wage is Y < X, then someone has to make up the difference. Two methods to make up the gap that make sense to me are taxation and redistribution, or raising the minimum wage. How do you suggest to make up the gap?

Post by Cozumel » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 6:44 AM UTC

RivieraKid wrote: post #191

taeric wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This line of thinking leads to allowing people to sell themselves into slavery. Do we need to solve homelessness? Absolutely. We do not do this by propping up businesses and properties that rely on below livable wages. I can buy some level of slippery slope at play here. But, by and large, this frames it in a way that allows sub-livable wages. So, you can think my "side" is framing this in a way to justify it. This d…

What's wrong with allowing people to sell themselves into what you call slavery? Assuming it's a bad decision (makes their lives worse off), the problem is that they make a bad decision. In that case, it might make sense to create a regulation that forbids people making bad decisions. If it's a good decision, there's no point forbidding it.

Post by thehardsphere » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 10:13 AM UTC

accountyaccount wrote: post #222

thehardsphere wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more like trying to save a sinking ship by telling the crew on the ship they can only use high-quality licensed ship repair equipment, instead patching the holes with whatever they can improvise. Yes, it would be better if they used high quality hull repair equipment, but sometimes it's not available and insisting that's the only thing you're allowed to use while the ship is sinking and people are struggling to…

Yeah, fair. People need help now. But how long can we continue kicking this problem down the road. We need to tie this thing to inflation or just admit that it's not the solution.

Post by PatentTroll » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 1:34 PM UTC

koolba wrote: post #158

PatentTroll wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, if no company is willing to pay a living wage to accomplish a task, does it need to be done?

Perhaps not, or more likely it doesn't need to be done in the jurisdiction of the forced minimum. For fully localized jobs that cannot move (ex: waiter) that means they probably won't exist at all and the business will close down.