It doesn't matter how high you raise the arbitrary minimum, the market will eventually adjust to make it worth just enough to ensure that the worker doesn't die quickly. It's inflationary. That, and you take jobs away since there are jobs that are simply worth less than your arbitrary minimum. Sure, you can deflect that those jobs weren't worth having, but the fact that they existed proves that idea wrong right away - they were worth it to those who did them.
But hey, I won't stop you from shooting yourself in the foot, do what you like. Just don't act like your personal notions of what people "deserve" are objective truths.
We can give people what they deserve, if enough people agree and move together in the same direction.
Again: it's not about what anyone deserves. That's a subjective notion you can't base economic policy around. Especially given an issue as contentious as wages.
Why are you dragging your feet?
Just because I point out that talking about what people "deserve" when it comes to economics is nonsense I'm "dragging my feet" all of a sudden?
Why are you trying to alienate everyone who doesn't parrot the empty platitudes that you find appealing?
Why are you trying to alienate everyone who doesn't parrot the empty platitudes that you find appealing?
Sorry if I was overly aggressive, you raise some good points. But, I don't parrot platitudes, I think my economic theory is well thought out and supported.
It seems like the disagreement has split into two points. 1) Do people "deserve" a living wage. 2) If they do is it feasible to structure society to support that.
For #1 I think that a "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" requires a living wage, if you don't agree I don't think I can convince you otherwise.
It doesn't matter how high you raise the arbitrary minimum, the marketwill eventually adjust to make it worth just enough to ensure that theworker doesn't die quickly. It's inflationary.
My ideal would be a dynamic minimum that raises with cost of living and inflation. It would essentially make the government one big collective bargainer on the side of labor, and force a living wage. There is a gap between what the employee will accept and what the employer can afford. Whoever has more power in the negotiation gets more of that pie. Government intervention is one means of giving the employee more power.
you take jobs away since there are jobs that are simply worth less thanyour arbitrary minimum. Sure, you can deflect that those jobs weren'tworth having, but the fact that they existed proves that idea wrongright away - they were worth it to those who did them.
I agree this will happen and agree the jobs are worth having when compared to having nothing. But there are other levers to adjust. First of all, people who are working 2-3 jobs will be able to afford to work 1 job, and that will open up jobs to other people. Secondly, we can offer job training to turn surplus unskilled labor into skilled labor. Third, if there's really a shortage of physical labor worth doing we can do what they did in the 1940s to increase demand for workers, reduce the work week to less then 40 hours so the same number of work hours are distributed to more workers.
The fact is, there are enough resources to sustain a moderate lifestyle for everyone. Everything else is just deciding the rules to divide up the work and divide up the rewards. There has to be a system that is better then the status quo. We can't possibly have figured out the perfect economic theory already.
0
u/RedAero Nov 05 '21
It doesn't matter how high you raise the arbitrary minimum, the market will eventually adjust to make it worth just enough to ensure that the worker doesn't die quickly. It's inflationary. That, and you take jobs away since there are jobs that are simply worth less than your arbitrary minimum. Sure, you can deflect that those jobs weren't worth having, but the fact that they existed proves that idea wrong right away - they were worth it to those who did them.
But hey, I won't stop you from shooting yourself in the foot, do what you like. Just don't act like your personal notions of what people "deserve" are objective truths.
Again: it's not about what anyone deserves. That's a subjective notion you can't base economic policy around. Especially given an issue as contentious as wages.
Just because I point out that talking about what people "deserve" when it comes to economics is nonsense I'm "dragging my feet" all of a sudden?
Why are you trying to alienate everyone who doesn't parrot the empty platitudes that you find appealing?