|
twodot posted:If there were multiple local maxima, it would demonstrate the shape was arbitrary (and wrong) which is what I was avoiding discussing. No, neither multiple local maxima nor different definitions of benefit to the poor would have any impact on the idea I'm communicating with the graph. Chalets the Baka posted:What makes $15/hr the economic disaster that $12/hr isn't? What evidence do you have that it would benefit the poor more than $12? $12 might be the maximum on that graph.
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 16:14 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The median US wage is 17.09 so .7 (which is higher than any OECD country) would be $11.96/hr. The mean wage is 22.71, and the highest OECD ratio is .51, which works out to $11.58/hr. I think there's plenty of reason to be confident that a $10/hr or $12/hr minimum will work out well but not a lot to think that $15/hr will. Turkey is .69 and Chile is .68 and both them were at .70 or higher at some point. That isn't an impressive fact. As far as US median wage, we might be talking about different things because the OECD data doesn't match the BLS data. .37 (from the OECD data) of $17.09 is $6.32 not $7.25, something is off there. Using a $7.25 minimum wage x .37 of median gets you $19.57. It is probably because the OECD data is only talking about full time workers, but nevertheless the comparison you are is against full time workers in other countries. .7 times $19.57 is $13.7 using 2014 data, it would probably be marginally higher with 2015 data. Most posters would be fine with phasing it in anyway, so if you take into considering inflation there is already clearly already an overlap if you were willing to phase it in. JeffersonClay posted:What evidence do you have that it would benefit the poor more than $12? $12 might be the maximum on that graph. How is that an argument? If you want to say there is a point of declining returns, fine but to draw an arbitrary line in the sand is a bit too much especially when the gap is $3 or some inflation. Hell, ff you are okay (I guess?) with .7 of median or a bit higher than .7 median we might be arguing over a buck or less at this point. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:57
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:What evidence do you have that it would benefit the poor more than $12? $12 might be the maximum on that graph. How are we defining "benefit to the poor"? You have yet to do so.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No, neither multiple local maxima nor different definitions of benefit to the poor would have any impact on the idea I'm communicating with the graph.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Beyond that, we have no idea whether the represented slope/shape of the function has any relationship to reality, even if JeffersonClay does manage to connect two neurons together and give us a definition.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Actually Elcondemn was explicitly arguing that the wage could increase forever, without bound, and the graph was posted in response to him. You're just wrong. I did not argue you could increase it forever, I was merely trying to point out that your optimal point (the point at which most people equally suffer) is different than my optimal point (the point at which anyone who's working can survive with no additional assistance). But that's the problem, you think being in favor of a living wage is at odds with a functioning economy. JeffersonClay posted:Is paying a living wage and preventing exploitation a good thing because it's a moral imperative? Or is paying a living wage and preventing exploitation a good thing because it helps the poor? If the latter, we should consider the overall impacts of the policy when deciding whether the policy helps the poor. Paying a living wage and preventing exploitation is a good thing because it helps workers. I'm still failing to see how not providing a living wage is helping the poor. Right now anyone who does not earn a living wage is being hurt, are you saying that it's possible that if we increase the minimum wage to a living wage all the people currently earning less than a living wage will become unemployed? Or even a large portion of them will? What data do you have that proves this? You do understand the OECD ratio is an average of all wages, right? If we increase the minimum wage that number will change and it won't be what you fear it will be. JeffersonClay posted:I don't really care what you or anybody else says the minimum wage is "for". I only care about what effects it will have. I can't prove that a 15,000,000/hr minimum wage will lead to mass unemployment because a 15,000,000/hr minimum wage has never existed. There is every reason to believe that it would be a lovely policy. So you're in favor of policy that ensures the largest number of people suffer as long as they're all working? Is that your goal? To ensure everyone works regardless of whether it feeds, clothes and houses them and their families? JeffersonClay posted:No, you just don't understand graphs, I guess. Sinnlos' graph does show a point where the minimum wage does begin to harm the poor, and Akumu's graph is just misleading, but we are assured it does indeed eventually cross the X axis. His graph actually shows no harm to the poor, below the line is the area where the poor are hurt. Why is that model less realistic than yours? They both have no data to back them up and each seems just as likely, inflation would equalize wages, wouldn't it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:
Could be $20 too since the graph is conceptual and doesn't actually have a number to back it up so this point is moot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 19:12
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:What evidence do you have that it would benefit the poor more than $12? $12 might be the maximum on that graph.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:How are we defining "benefit to the poor"? You have yet to do so. The only thing I can think of is he thinks "benefit to the poor" = maximum amount of poor people working, regardless of them earning enough to survive sans some kind of government safety net. So basically $0 minimum wage would apparently be the best thing we could do for poor people since every single person could be employed at that rate without effecting prices.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:How are we defining "benefit to the poor"? You have yet to do so. Ok let's define it as "additional purchasing power". Additional dollars or additional welfare would both work equally well. Effectronica posted:Beyond that, we have no idea whether the represented slope/shape of the function has any relationship to reality, even if JeffersonClay does manage to connect two neurons together and give us a definition. I'm not using the slope to make any part of my point, so this does not matter at all. Gravel Gravy posted:Could be $20 too since the graph is conceptual and doesn't actually have a number to back it up so this point is moot. It could be $20. If a living wage is 24.50, then the poor would be better off at a minimum wage of 20 than at a living wage. That's the point. ElCondemn posted:I did not argue you could increase it forever, I was merely trying to point out that your optimal point (the point at which most people equally suffer) is different than my optimal point (the point at which anyone who's working can survive with no additional assistance). But that's the problem, you think being in favor of a living wage is at odds with a functioning economy. The "optimal point" on my graph is the level of minimum wage that maximizes total benefits to the poor. That minimum wage, and a living wage, have no relationship whatsoever. What you're saying is that you don't care if a high minimum wage actually hurts poor people more than it helps, and we should only worry about the effects it has on people who keep their jobs, which is stupid. quote:Paying a living wage and preventing exploitation is a good thing because it helps workers. I'm still failing to see how not providing a living wage is helping the poor. Right now anyone who does not earn a living wage is being hurt, are you saying that it's possible that if we increase the minimum wage to a living wage all the people currently earning less than a living wage will become unemployed? Or even a large portion of them will? What data do you have that proves this? You do understand the OECD ratio is an average of all wages, right? If we increase the minimum wage that number will change and it won't be what you fear it will be. No. I'm in favor of a policy which balances employment losses with wage gains and other factors to maximize the transfer of purchasing power to the poor. quote:His graph actually shows no harm to the poor, below the line is the area where the poor are hurt. Why is that model less realistic than yours? They both have no data to back them up and each seems just as likely, inflation would equalize wages, wouldn't it? If you think his model is a good one, and his model shows no potential harm to the poor, then you literally think the minimum wage can increase infinitely without negative consequences. Ardennes posted:Turkey is .69 and Chile is .68 and both them were at .70 or higher at some point. That isn't an impressive fact. I think we need to find some more consistent data, but if the data shows a 13.7 minimum wage working then I have no qualms with trying to implement that. quote:How is that an argument? If you want to say there is a point of declining returns, fine but to draw an arbitrary line in the sand is a bit too much especially when the gap is $3 or some inflation. Hell, ff you are okay (I guess?) with .7 of median or a bit higher than .7 median we might be arguing over a buck or less at this point. My intent isn't to quibble about a dollar, and I don't have the expectation that we'll ever be able to hit that maximal point perfectly. But "raise the minimum wage, problem solved" isn't an argument, and "you can't prove a $15 dollar minimum wage will destroy society" is self-refuting, since we can't prove anything about a $15 dollar minimum wage at all, good or bad. There's no reason to assume the effects must be better than, say, $12.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 19:46
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It could be $20. If a living wage is 24.50, then the poor would be better off at a minimum wage of 20 than at a living wage. That's the point. It could be $30. If a living wage is 24.50, then the poor would be better off at a minimum wage of $30 than at a living wage. That's the point. JeffersonClay posted:I'm not using the slope to make any part of my point, so this does not matter at all. actually you drew the slope to make it look exactly how you wanted, which is that if we raise minimum wage too high employment will fall off a cliff evidence that this will happen: 0 yet another reason you shouldnt make mspaint charts: yes
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
If the optimal minimum wage is one that a full-time worker can't support themselves on, then our entire society is a failure and we should burn it all down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 19:50
|
|
Akumu posted:If the optimal minimum wage is one that a full-time worker can't support themselves on, then our entire society is a failure and we should burn it all down. it is just the concept of incrementing a minimum wage and witnesseing the effects is far too advanced of a technique for the minds of asdf32, jeffersongraphmaker and watersoveridiot
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:it is just the concept of incrementing a minimum wage and witnesseing the effects is far too advanced of a technique for the minds of asdf32, jeffersongraphmaker and watersoveridiot That is exactly what I've advocated doing. You are bad at reading. Akumu posted:If the optimal minimum wage is one that a full-time worker can't support themselves on, then our entire society is a failure and we should burn it all down. Counterpoint: the minimum wage is not the only way to ensure everyone has a living income. If the minimum wage can't achieve that we could try something else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:00
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:That is exactly what I've advocated doing. You are bad at reading. counterpoint: this is exactly what everyone you've been arguing with is advocating for and you're just too stupid to realize it
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:it is just the concept of incrementing a minimum wage and witnesseing the effects is far too advanced of a technique for the minds of asdf32, jeffersongraphmaker and watersoveridiot If we do that and it turns out we start getting negative effects before we hit "full time worker can sustain themselves without direct government assistance," what do we do then? How hosed would it be to have a job where you work all day and you haven't even produced enough value to sustain your own existence? How amazingly extra hosed would it be if that job was somehow the most productive thing available to you? That's a systemic failure right there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:02
|
|
Akumu posted:If we do that and it turns out we start getting negative effects before we hit "full time worker can sustain themselves without direct government assistance," what do we do then? have the discussion we've already needed for years, which is what to do with the portion of the workforce being displaced via no fault of their own GMI, destigmatize unemployment, don't make a job required to live, 25 hour work week, etc
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Counterpoint: the minimum wage is not the only way to ensure everyone has a living income. If the minimum wage can't achieve that we could try something else. We should in addition to a minimum wage (or as much as one we can politically/functionally get away with) but I have little hope beyond some type of minimum wage increase. I think we should push for everything we can get though. However, ultimately I think there is going to be a serious crisis not because of a minimum wage but ultimately governments don't have the ability to raise revenue or the political ability to create stable social systems anymore. In that sense, I see a minimum wage as a lever we can still control but in the end capitalism is going to eat itself alive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The shape isn't arbitrary. You're just bad at understanding graphs, or economics, I guess. Are you a mathematician? Because if you were, then you would know that the shape of a curve on a graph with no units or scale is by definition arbitrary. I mean you keep saying that you defined this graph with 3 very specific criteria: a positive slope, a maxima, and a negative slope, in that order. Then everything else about the graph is arbitrary, correct? AKA you could have drawn a triangle, or a sine wave, or a Gaussian, or any number of other shapes that would satisfy your criteria; an arbitrary choice. Hmm maybe everyone else is just dumb and can't understand your beautiful graph, that's one possibility. But have you stopped and considered that maybe it's your own woeful lack of knowledge that is making everyone else laugh at you? quote:Ok, so if we assume that the graph eventually curves down and crosses the X axis, his graph and mine are exactly the same. Except that his has a scale, and units, and limits, and yours does not. I don't know how you're still not getting this JeffersonClay posted:I mean aiming for a minimum wage that corresponds with the maximum benefit on the graph. But what does that actually mean? How would you measure "benefit"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
If we've increased the minimum wage to $30/hour and discovered that unemployment increased by 0.1% and prices increased by 0.3%, but "the poor" are now earning an average of 150% more than they were before, then can you quantify for us what the net benefit to "the poor" was? Tell us your formula
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:It could be $30. If a living wage is 24.50, then the poor would be better off at a minimum wage of $30 than at a living wage. That's the point. You get it! A living wage can be too high or too low to maximize benefits to the poor. It's not relevant in determining the optimal minimum wage. My graph was a success! I feel so gratified. quote:actually you drew the slope to make it look exactly how you wanted, which is that if we raise minimum wage too high employment will fall off a cliff 1). In a unitless graph the slope is pretty meaningless. 2). If I made the negative slope more shallow, that would imply the benefit maximizing point was actually lower. 3). Employment will fall off a cliff at some large value of the minimum wage. Unless you think the minimum wage can increase infinitely, you must agree! 4). Considering my graph has demonstrably improved your understanding of the subject, complaining about it seems pretty petulant at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Ok let's define it as "additional purchasing power". Additional dollars or additional welfare would both work equally well. Awesome, I've been trying to get you to say this forever. Minimum wage is intended to help workers, I agree that the non-working poor should be taken care of through additional welfare or dollars, completely separate from the minimum wage. We are on the same page, really, I'm not joking! JeffersonClay posted:The "optimal point" on my graph is the level of minimum wage that maximizes total benefits to the poor. That minimum wage, and a living wage, have no relationship whatsoever. What you're saying is that you don't care if a high minimum wage actually hurts poor people more than it helps, and we should only worry about the effects it has on people who keep their jobs, which is stupid. What I'm actually saying is I don't believe providing a living wage will hurt the poor. I believe this because other countries are doing it today, they provide a living wage and also provide for the poor. Your hypothesis has no basis in reality, a place where workers were given a living wage and it spurred mass unemployment does not exist. So I'm proposing we let the minimum wage to do what it was intended to do, provide a living wage. We can solve the poor problem with tools like education and welfare, though I suspect we won't exacerbate that problem, since other countries prove it is possible to provide a living wage and also help the poor. JeffersonClay posted:If you think his model is a good one, and his model shows no potential harm to the poor, then you literally think the minimum wage can increase infinitely without negative consequences. His diagram has no infinite label, where are you getting this? JeffersonClay posted:My intent isn't to quibble about a dollar, and I don't have the expectation that we'll ever be able to hit that maximal point perfectly. But "raise the minimum wage, problem solved" isn't an argument, and "you can't prove a $15 dollar minimum wage will destroy society" is self-refuting, since we can't prove anything about a $15 dollar minimum wage at all, good or bad. There's no reason to assume the effects must be better than, say, $12. You are quibbling over dollars, I've been arguing that we need to provide a living wage, regardless of the dollar value. Since that's the whole point of a minimum wage. But don't take my word for it, there is plenty of information out there that explains why we have a minimum wage. Here's a wiki article to get you started, http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Minimum_wage But also your fear mongering doesn't change anything, your argument is "we don't know if it will hurt or help people, so be wary of increasing the minimum wage". But we have proof that other countries can and do provide a living wage, with little to no effect on the poor. So why can't we do it? I'm sure you'll come up with a bunch more "well, we can't know for sure" arguments, but that isn't the same as proof. down with slavery posted:It could be $30. If a living wage is 24.50, then the poor would be better off at a minimum wage of $30 than at a living wage. That's the point. I think you're confusing him, he thinks the graphs that people made are valid and have useful information, what he's not getting is that all the "information" in the graph is arbitrary and useless as "proof". $30 could very well be best for the poor, but there's no way to tell that based on the diagrams of how we wish the world worked. ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:3). Employment will fall off a cliff at some large value of the minimum wage. Unless you think the minimum wage can increase infinitely, you must agree! The minimum wage can certainly increase infinitely, it's just a number, it can be whatever you want. How that affects the poor is not explained by your diagram.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Obviously it is, as it the X goes to infinity the Y goes from good to bad to worse. Bad how, no one can quite say. I think the biggest flaw in his graph is that it should have a limit as x approaches infinity, because at some point everyone is equally hosed by a million % inflation and a billion %.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:34
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:1). In a unitless graph the slope is pretty meaningless. A unitless graph is pretty meaningless but I assure you the slope is always important when displaying a graph. quote:2). If I made the negative slope more shallow, that would imply the benefit maximizing point was actually lower. Again, it doesn't matter what the implication is, just that you've chosen it arbitrarily quote:3). Employment will fall off a cliff at some large value of the minimum wage. quote:4). Considering my graph has demonstrably improved your understanding of the subject, complaining about it seems pretty petulant at this point. If you think your graph has convinced anyone of anything other than you're an idiot I regret to inform you that you're sorely mistaken
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:If we've increased the minimum wage to $30/hour and discovered that unemployment increased by 0.1% and prices increased by 0.3%, but "the poor" are now earning an average of 150% more than they were before, then can you quantify for us what the net benefit to "the poor" was? Tell us your formula (Additional dollars gained in wages for the working poor) - (wages lost by newly unemployed poor) - (total dollars spent by the poor X 0.003) down with slavery posted:counterpoint: this is exactly what everyone you've been arguing with is advocating for and you're just too stupid to realize it The people arguing minimum wage = living wage drat the torpedoes are not arguing this. Maybe you're too stupid to realize it? QuarkJets posted:Are you a mathematician? Because if you were, then you would know that the shape of a curve on a graph with no units or scale is by definition arbitrary. Any of those shapes would serve to illustrate my point equally well. So yes, I'll concede that using a curve instead of a triangle was, in a minor sense, arbitrary, but in a larger sense, a distinction with no difference whatsoever. Using a curve instead of a hyperbola or an upward sloping line was not, in any sense, arbitrary. quote:Except that his has a scale, and units, and limits, and yours does not. I don't know how you're still not getting this none of which are necessary to illustrate my point. I don't know how you are still not getting this. quote:But what does that actually mean? How would you measure "benefit"? You could define it a lot of ways, but let's say "increased purchasing power for the poor".
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:A unitless graph is pretty meaningless but I assure you the slope is always important when displaying a graph. How can you calculate the slope? Why do you assume the axes aren't logarithmic? The slope isn't important for this graph because it has no implication whatsoever on the relationship conveyed in the graph. quote:Again, it doesn't matter what the implication is, just that you've chosen it arbitrarily Uh, yeah, it does matter if there's no implication because then it doesn't matter if my choice was arbitrary. quote:Citation needed. You just don't know the slope of the graph as much as you'd like to continue to imply otherwise. Again, if you disagree with me you are one of those people arguing the minimum wage can increase indefinitely without causing negative consequences. I can't possibly provide empirical evidence for what would happen at a 1000/hr minimum wage because that has never existed. You are wrong. quote:If you think your graph has convinced anyone of anything other than you're an idiot I regret to inform you that you're sorely mistaken It helped you to understand there's no relationship between a living wage and the optimal minimum wage, for one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Akumu posted:If we do that and it turns out we start getting negative effects before we hit "full time worker can sustain themselves without direct government assistance," what do we do then? How hosed would it be to have a job where you work all day and you haven't even produced enough value to sustain your own existence? How amazingly extra hosed would it be if that job was somehow the most productive thing available to you? That's a systemic failure right there. That's the position billions of people find themselves in by your standards. It's dumb in my opinion to draw these moral lines in the sand. The economy doesn't give a poo poo about them and pretending it does or wanting it to doesn't make that happen. It's perfectly conceivable that the combination of a market economy with advanced automation will drive wages for some people down to zero. And it's probably already happening. When the market can't do the thing you want just look elsewhere. There are tons of policy options that don't involve the market and can meet the same goals.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
What is the economy for. Why do we have it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
euphronius posted:What is the economy for. Why do we have it. For doing some important stuff, but not close to everything, in society.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
What is the economy?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Like is what you just said is that "the economy" doesnt give a poo poo about billions of people. Right? Why is that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:(Additional dollars gained in wages for the working poor) - (wages lost by newly unemployed poor) - (total dollars spent by the poor X 0.003) Make a real graph showing this data. You can merge historical unemployment rates with increases in minimum wage and show us what the trend will look like. I'm pretty sure we've all seen that graph though, and it doesn't show what you're claiming is going to happen... http://aneconomicsense.com/2013/03/06/the-impact-of-increasing-the-minimum-wage-on-unemployment-no-evidence-of-it/ Weird, with real data your graph doesn't show a curve like you described at all. I wonder if that's an indication that your fears might be irrational, probably not, given enough time and enough increases we'll eventually see you were right all along. Feel free to put together a graph showing your fears in action using any other country, I bet you won't find a graph that fits your ideal worldview, where a living wage is detrimental to the poor. JeffersonClay posted:The people arguing minimum wage = living wage drat the torpedoes are not arguing this. Maybe you're too stupid to realize it? I think I'm the only one saying minimum wage should be a living wage, but either way I'm not saying "the poors don't matter". I'm saying it's irrelevant whether or not a living wage increases unemployment because right now anyone not earning a living wage is already being hurt. Why do you hate the underemployed? Though I only say that because I want to remove the unemployed as a factor, since you keep harping "think of the children(unemployed)". I don't actually believe providing a living wage will cause mass unemployment or "hurt the poor" at all. Especially since the non-working poor are few and would benefit from their caretakers getting a pay raise, and for those without caretakers welfare is/should be taking care of them. Which honestly, if we could reduce the dependence on services like SNAP by giving working people a living wage we could put more money towards helping the poor. But of course your diagram is too simplistic to take any of that into account, the same way your algorithm doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
The economy doesn't care about anything because it's not some conscious avatar of capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The economy doesn't care about anything because it's not some conscious avatar of capitalism. What is it then.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
It's a word we use to describe some of the emergent properties of a system where billions of humans interact with each other at an incomprehensible rate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Like is what you just said is that "the economy" doesnt give a poo poo about billions of people. Right? Correct. "The market" doesn't really care. The market plays a role but is ultimately part of a larger system that's supposed to ensure fairness. We don't expect the market to double as a justice system for example. And the fact that it doesn't ensure a living wage for everyone is similarly not a surprise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:That's the position billions of people find themselves in by your standards. It's dumb in my opinion to draw these moral lines in the sand. The economy doesn't give a poo poo about them and pretending it does or wanting it to doesn't make that happen. So because the economy doesn't give a poo poo about people we should just accept that? Instead of discussing what we should do to provide a living wage the solution is to do what? Nothing? You're proposing we use some other method to supplement workers instead of paying them for the work they're doing? What is that method and is there support for it? asdf32 posted:There are tons of policy options that don't involve the market and can meet the same goals. So minimum wage isn't a good tool for ensuring people have a living wage? You believe that working full time shouldn't provide enough to live, so why work if it's not going to give you enough to live? If working isn't enough, what tools do we have that are available and easily achieved?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 21:31
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It helped you to understand there's no relationship between a living wage and the optimal minimum wage, for one. There should be. There's no reason to allow a business to hire someone for less than a living wage. It's unethical. asdf32 posted:Correct. "The market" doesn't really care. The market plays a role but is ultimately part of a larger system that's supposed to ensure fairness. We don't expect the market to double as a justice system for example. And the fact that it doesn't ensure a living wage for everyone is similarly not a surprise. Of course not, the people who designed it didn't design it that way. The economy is a human construct, it does whatever we want it to. Allowing less than living wages is a choice, not a consequence
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 16:14 |
|
|
Who or what creates the economy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 21:32
|
|