91–100 of 381 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The CEO of Walmart even advised the feds that they should raise the minimum wage. High minimum wages favor larger entities than can leverage economies of scale. Amazon has expressed similar support. I don't think this is entirely altruistic.
It's not altruistic at all. In ten years Amazon (and likely WalMart) will be out of that labor market entirely and their competition will be left with the baggage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you mind quickly summarizing what that plot is telling us? I looked at it but it looks like I've got to read more of the paper before I understand it.
The plot is showing that there is a negative selection bias in the reporting of stories about minimum wage. That is, that stories suggesting that increasing minimum wage has negative effects (increases unemployment, etc) are overreported relative to stories showing a positive effect from an increase in minimum wage. I am only repeating what the paper says; I don't claim to have validated their methodology or sources.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
is it difficult for your wifes business to make money, and pay your employees at $15 (or more)? Serious question.
If it is difficult, then it's not a very good business. Serious question: Why would you want to run a business that can only survive by paying people poverty wages?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand why this isn't a red herring. Minimum wage may be remaining stagnant but total employee compensation has been rising steadily, it's just that most of that compensation is in the form of spending on employee benefits like insurance. If people quit expecting employers to provide them with anything except for cold hard cash then you'd likely see wages increasing with time. To expand a bit more on this…
It's rare for a company to offer health insurance to employees who are pegged to minimum wage. If salaries are going down due to inflation, then you may have a point but it's a perverse one; medical costs are going up way faster than anything else. Both are reasons to support socialized medical coverage, but they don't really enter into this particular line of discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
is it difficult for your wifes business to make money, and pay your employees at $15 (or more)? Serious question.
If it is difficult, then it's not a very good business. Serious question: Why would you want to run a business that can only survive by paying people poverty wages?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This maybe leads to the question of why we should favor any business to continue operating in a space that may be a net negative contribution to our society What does the minimum wage have to do with contribution to society? > Without enforcing minimum wage, and perhaps least minimum full time to part time employment ratios, we face businesses competing on prices by undercutting labor instead of other avenues of im…
If a business can only exist if you exploit your labor force, then maybe your business shouldn't exist. The portion of people that work jobs for fun or a little extra income are a minority. There are more examples of people working several minimum wage jobs just trying to survive. Maybe there is a compromise somewhere though. How about if you pay the minimum wage, then the owners/stake holders cannot make more than t…
In what sense is offering someone money to do something for you exploitation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's rare for a company to offer health insurance to employees who are pegged to minimum wage. If salaries are going down due to inflation, then you may have a point but it's a perverse one; medical costs are going up way faster than anything else. Both are reasons to support socialized medical coverage, but they don't really enter into this particular line of discussion.
Truthfully I agree but I'd argue this seems more like a reason to decouple healthcare from employment entirely. Such as with socialized medical coverage like you suggest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To add to your links: https://contrakrugman.com/
Thanks. It's good to challenge your views, so I'll listen in a bit. However, I must say that as an ex-libertarian (that left the creed because of its serious flaws) I am apprehensive about the neutrality of a show hosted by Tim Wood, a "Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist and paleolibertarian" (Wikipedia) that's received fellowships from the Institute for Humane Studies (funded by the Scaifes, Kochs, etc.). EDIT to add: h…
I'd also assume any show that bills itself as "Paul Krugman's column refuted, week after week!" is more of an ideological security blanket than real intellectual engagement or critique.