Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Minimum Wage Clock

moonbase.lgbt

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 278 posts

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#101

Post by kimbernator »

npoc wrote: post #72
pastacacioepepe wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people who are happy to work for less I wonder where are these people. Do you know any? Would you be "happy" to work for less than minimum wage? > it creates an effect similar to communism Sure, gommunism is when minimum wage. Most of Europe is in fact gommunist today, while its bourgeoisie gets richer and richer by the year.

> I wonder where are these people. Do you know any? Would you be "happy" to work for less than minimum wage? I'd be very happy to work for less than the minimum wage if that's all my work was worth and the alternative was no job.. > Sure, gommunism is when minimum wage. Most of Europe is in fact gommunist today, while its bourgeoisie gets richer and richer by the year. The root cause of this wealth disparity is the f…

> I'd be very happy to work for less than the minimum wage if that's all my work was worth and the alternative was no job.

Is this a scenario you feel you are qualified to answer for? Have you, as somebody with meaningful living expenses, ever been in a scenario like this? If not, I'm certain you do not have an accurate picture of what that would be like and what you would consider your options to be.

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#102

Post by MuffinFlavored »

slibhb wrote: post #23

People like to talk about inequality but absolute poverty seems like a more important target. Satya Nadella having more money than me doesn't make my life worse; I'm more concerned about the availability of jobs, food, housing, etc. That said, CEO salary does strike me as strange. Who needs 8 million per year + stock? I'd think more CEOs would voluntarily take a pay cut.

> Satya Nadella having more money than me doesn't make my life worse; I'm more concerned about the availability of jobs, food, housing, etc.

Does Satya Nadella not giving all of his extra monies to better causes and instead keeping it for himself make the lives of others (those in poverty) worse? Or "not better"? aka "billionaires choose to retain some portion of their earnings/wealth instead of dedicating it to poverty"

Then the question becomes "why do we expect those with a lot of money to selflessly not want to keep the money for themselves and instead give back/give it away"

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#103

Post by COGlory »

slibhb wrote: post #23

People like to talk about inequality but absolute poverty seems like a more important target. Satya Nadella having more money than me doesn't make my life worse; I'm more concerned about the availability of jobs, food, housing, etc. That said, CEO salary does strike me as strange. Who needs 8 million per year + stock? I'd think more CEOs would voluntarily take a pay cut.

This logic only applies when the economy is growing faster than inflation. As soon as it levels off (or dips below) as it has since the 70s, this becomes patently false.

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#104

Post by seiferteric »

justrealist wrote: post #2

I mean have a conversation about the wage gap sure but know that these numbers are not meaningful as it regards the US.

True, but a big problem with these jobs is not giving employees enough hours consistently. I wonder how many people are getting effectively minimum wage or less because they don't even get full-time hours consistently.

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#105

Post by beaeglebeached »

oh_sigh wrote: post #92
margalabargala wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you and the person you replied to are talking about two different things here. OP is saying "in terms of goals, the end goal should be reduction of poverty, not reduction of rich people". You're saying "in reality, data says that reduction of rich people tends to correlate with reduction of poverty", thus opening up reduction of rich people as one potential path towards the reduction of poverty. I don't think…

What society reduced it's rich people and increased the average richness? When I think of the concept my mind jumps to stalin eliminating the kulaks, or mao and the cultural revolution, or pol pot, which ended up helping destroy their society, not make everyone wealthier.

When the rich get rich via redistribution of value rather than generation of value, average richness rises after those rich are deposed.

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#106

Post by digging »

meowtimemania wrote: post #52
maerF0x0 wrote: post #13

If we find this appalling, let's stop consuming the products of those who we feel are "overpaid" and visit the website, businessplace, or other endeavors of those we feel are "underpaid". Tim Cook gets paid a lot (and so do many AAPL employees), but I can't help but admit that my last 3 laptops I bought with my own cash were MBP, and not a system76 or framework. And I'm more likely to visit costco than a farmer's mar…

Ironically, Costco treats its employees much better than most any locally owned shop.

That's probably true.

The benefits of local business are 1) that dollars spent there generate more wealth for the local economy, as they're not extracted to offshore bank accounts; and 2) that there can be more accountability to and involvement with the community served.

However, just because someone hasn't expanded their business to the state/national/international levels doesn't make them a good person, a good manager, a good CEO, or a good community member. The term "petty tyrant" is often used to refer to small business owners who abuse their employees and/or community.

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#107

Post by rhcom2 »

npoc wrote: post #82
kimbernator wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mean to make assumptions about your life or your conditions, but in scenario A you describe a reality where there are a meaningful number of people who would be content to sell their labor for less than $7.25 per hour. I do not find this believable, given how little that amount is in today's dollars. At the point that you're okay with working for, say, $5/hour, why work at all? What lifestyle permits that as…

In the case of most US states, I think it's fair to say that the minimum wage is moot. As you say, hardly anyone would consider working for less than that anyway. But why take away their freedom to do so?

Well I think for one there is a power imbalance between employees and employers that seems primed for abuse without some regulatory minimum.

Also is the goal to maximize the number in the workflow, or get people out of poverty? Having them work for less may increase employment figures but they'll still be in poverty. The minimum wage has shown to decrease employment but also lift the people employed out of poverty [1].

1. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-02/56975-Minimum-Wage....

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#108

Post by wizardwes »

dylan604 wrote: post #69
cedws wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's not a cap, it's a minimum. misphrased, fixed. >This is so people can employ kids who have very little economic value and train them to have lots of it. But 18 year olds are not kids anymore and are capable of providing just as much economic value as a 25 year old. Especially if the employer is a coffee shop or restaurant. Minimum wage should be the same for all ages. It should be at the discretion of the employ…

I would argue a 25 year old is still a kid too. I know every 20 something would vehemently disagree which is kind of proof in and of itself. I don't mean it in a disrespectful manner.

"All X are Y, and their denial proves it" seems a very poor argument to me. By its very nature you can't really disprove it.

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#109

Post by Shacklz »

kurisufag wrote: post #47
AlexandrB wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Satya Nadella having more money than me doesn't make my life worse; Are you sure about that? What if he spends that money supporting political figures and economic policies that make your life worse?

following this line of logic would mean that /anyone/ having more capital than you is evidence of wrongness, including social capital.

There's a difference between 'having more capital' and 'having absolutely absurd amounts of capitals'.

If you look at income distribution graphs of the last few decades and the political influence those in the highest percentiles wielded, it's not entirely unfair to question whether this might make the life of the average citizen "worse".

Post reply on HN