81–90 of 93 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A maximum is not necessarily - or even normally - an outlier.
Sure, but we’re not making general statements. This one is.
Apparently (based on the comment I was replying to), labcomputer does seem to think the maximum is an outlier, and that this false generality applies here.
The only argument in favour of minimum wage is that if set at a low enough level it does not seem to have a detrimental effect on core prosperity metrics like employment rate. Proponents never attempt to claim any positive effect or show evidence of it. It doesn't reduce unemployment. It doesn't reduce poverty. In many situations it hurts young people who are trying to break into an industry, low income workers and s…
The only argument except all the ethical ones. > Proponents never attempt to claim any positive effect or show evidence of it Like workers being able to afford food?
Those are ethical arguments!
If your hours are cut, or you can't find work or small business goes bankrupt due to enforced minimum wage, then whether or not to implement this policy is an ethical consideration!
>Like workers being able to afford food?
Minimum wage doesn't fix that. Minimum wage does not show any measure of improvement on any metric we care about like poverty rates. And that's in the best case scenario. In many cases, it has a demonstrable negative effect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should they?
Because wealth generation is a positive feedback loop which creates a winner-take-all situation. And a persons starting conditions are based on luck. And roughly speaking, the relationship between money and well-being is non-linear, shaped like a log curve. So three kinds of unfair.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I get a little exhasperated wheneve I hear people push for a FEDERAL minimum wage. I would get exasperated by that, too, if it actually occurred; I mean, we’ve had a federal minimum wage since 1938 , why would people be arguing for something we’ve had for close to a century? But, since that is the case, I wonder if you’d like to clarify what it is you are ranting against, since it can't possibily really be the none…
"I get a little exhasperated whenever I hear people push for an increase to the federal minimum wage" Fixed. We should not be raising the federal MW and should instead prefer more localized measures, such as States, counties, cities, or individual industries developing their own policies.
Why? Abstract concerns based on ideal market assumptions that (1) apply the same to more localized measures as to federal measures, and (2) haven't been born out by 83 years of experiencing having, expanding the applicability of, and raising the federal minimum wage?
Yes, we should have more localized policies—and we do—but that's no reason not to raise the federal minimum wage to roughly keep pace with the lower of productivity and national price level.
Now, sure, if you want to argue that despite the relatively benign experience of state and federal minimum wages, there's a good argument that providing a floor through something like UBI would have less risk of inhibiting employment, and do we should transition from minimim wage to UBI (say, reducing hourly minimum wages from the level thet would otherwise be set at by annual UBI ÷ $2000 as we ramp up a UBI over time), I’d agree that makes sense.
The reality is that if the minimum wage had stayed consistent with productivity and inflation since 1968, America’s lowest earners would be making around $24 an hour by now, an analysis by Jacobin found last year. Fifteen dollars is not asking for a lot. In fact, it’s asking for less than the bare minimum of what we should be providing our workers.
"It's not how much you make. It's how much you keep." One of the things that tends to not enter these discussions is that the US has torn down about a million SROs[1] and largely zoned out of existence the ability to build other small scale homes currently being called Missing Middle Housing. When walkable neighborhoods were more the norm and you could get just a room or small place as market rate housing without hav…
Walmart employees make so little they are often eligible for food stamps. Walmart knows and teaches employees how to apply. What kind of free market is that? You shouldn’t be allowed to pay your employees so little that they are eligible for government benefits. To me this issue seems like something that both political parties would take issue with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because wealth generation is a positive feedback loop which creates a winner-take-all situation. And a persons starting conditions are based on luck. And roughly speaking, the relationship between money and well-being is non-linear, shaped like a log curve. So three kinds of unfair.
If you want to talk about fairness, imagine the guy who started near the bottom, made his way out of dire circumstances, climbed to the top through hard work and perserverance sacrificing his 20s and 30s (all while his friends sat around smoking weed, having families, enjoying life) and now someone like you comes along and takes ~50% of what he makes, in order to give it to those guys he knows did nothing to earn it.
The point is to see past your own pile of coin and think about society as a whole. If people were up for sacrificing that second holiday house and their stupid expensive watch or whatever, so much good would come of it.
Inequality fuels crime , public services like trains suffer etc...
I think ‘giving money to free loaders’ is a bit of a straw man, as the second order effects benefit everyone. Including you. And note I’m not advocating communism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because wealth generation is a positive feedback loop which creates a winner-take-all situation. And a persons starting conditions are based on luck. And roughly speaking, the relationship between money and well-being is non-linear, shaped like a log curve. So three kinds of unfair.
If you want to talk about fairness, imagine the guy who started near the bottom, made his way out of dire circumstances, climbed to the top through hard work and perserverance sacrificing his 20s and 30s (all while his friends sat around smoking weed, having families, enjoying life) and now someone like you comes along and takes ~50% of what he makes, in order to give it to those guys he knows did nothing to earn it.
We can sit around making up what-if hypothetical tropes till the cows come home, and nothing will change. The rich at the very top just get richer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only argument except all the ethical ones. > Proponents never attempt to claim any positive effect or show evidence of it Like workers being able to afford food?
You cant afford food when you dont have a job.