Minimum Rage
I think a minimum wage makes about as much sense as having a maximum wage. Yes, I understand all the reasons for why minimum wage came about, and I think there is a need to limit//prevent collusion and exploitation. But, setting these limits artificially imposes restrictions on what a “job” can be. If I have a very easy task (eg. I want to hire someone to give me a high five every hour, on the hour), I either have to skirt the law paying them under the table, or value this service at a government-imposed wage. Being a law-abiding American, I wouldn’t circumvent the Federal and State laws, and I also do not believe this service is worth the $9.36 minimum wage of San Francisco. Therefore - as a business owner - I am unable to create this job for anyone, nor can I have the service I require provided.
“Well said, Jessica. Even $5/hour leaves someone working 40 hours a week with $200 to live off - near-impossible as a single person, let alone someone supporting a family.” - miss-r
Q: What about the homeless guy who can’t get hired for the $5/hour minimum wage job, but would be qualified for a $3 an hour job?
A: He will have no job, because no $3 jobs exist. He will dig through trash cans for empty bottles and pizza crusts.
Q: But that’s not fair. It is my belief that no one should have to dig through trash cans.
A: Then why do you advocate laws that make digging through trash cans inevitable? Why do you eliminate the role of the least skilled people in the economy? Why do you insist that the ladder have no bottom rung?
Q: Nobody’s talking about ladders. I’m talking about the basic human right of a well-paying job.
A: What about the right to earn a living that, while meager, is better than no living at all?
Q: Easy for you to say! You’ve made plenty of money — you’re just trying to squeeze every last penny out of the underpriviledged!
A: I’ve made plenty of money because I’m good at evaluating complex systems and understanding how they could be made more efficient. There is an inefficiency here that hurts everyone. It bothers me because it could so easily be reversed, because it causes so much misery, and because it makes the economy worse off for me! But nobody wants to learn basic economics, so they go on repeating the same reality-denying mistakes that have been made, putting forth an agenda that cannot work but sure does sound nice.
Q: What do you want?
A: I want an economist to refute my arguments with facts derived from reality, not with implausible hypotheticals about tomatoes.