patrick.net

A smart investor I know once suggested to me that there be no minimum wage, but instead a minimum income tax refund, payable every 2 weeks.

So employers could pay as little as they can get away with, but everyone would definitely be employed and would get at least a certain amount of money.

It's kinda like the guaranteed basic income idea, but with everyone working.

says

So employers could pay as little as they can get away with

Isn't that basically what slavery was?

I fail to see how letting one class do no work and siphon off as much productivity from another class is an optimal economic system. Certainly it violates the principle of equal pay for work (wealth production).

Also, no "quote" button on the original post. Bug?

From OP,

$15 an hour minimum wage or ... whadda ya mean I don't have a job?

$15/hr at full time, 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year comes to $30k/yr, which is basically homeless territory in California. Any work that pays that little is work not worth doing. People are better off farming yams than working for someone at those wages.

says

It's kinda like the guaranteed basic income idea, but with everyone working.

I suppose the businesses would also want the working class to pay for it. So effectively the same as we have now.

Ironman says

Moreover, other studies on a national level suggest that minimum wage hikes can be major job killers

Any job killed by a minimum wage that doesn't even take people out of abject poverty is a job that is not worth doing. If the wealth production doesn't even cover sustaining the life of the worker, basic food and shelter, then the work being done should not be done. That's just the free market saying your business isn't worth the cost of life spent doing it.

I bet if there were a $30,000 guaranteed income that even without a minimum wage -- which would no longer be necessary with a guaranteed income sufficient to cover basic living expenses -- every job would offer at least $30,000/yr in compensation simply because owners would no longer be able to force people to work for scraps. A guaranteed income would enable every person to freely choose whether or not to work for someone rather than working just to survive. Then the concept of a free market becomes meaningful.

says

If you're 30 years old working for minimum wage, you have a lot bigger personal issues than the wages.

Paying a teenager $15/hr to flip burgers or push shopping carts is nuts.

In the rare case, I have to mostly agree with ironman. In this post, I won't even call him ironpussy, because, he is mostly right. $15/hour might work in extremely expensive coastal cities, but economically is probably way too big of an increase for many parts of the USA. Hell, there are counties where that is getting close to median earning!

Unskilled employees and teenagers are pricing themselves out of the market. The results:
1. Welfare rolls will go up.
2. Crime will increase.
3. Prices of basic necessities will increase.

Ironman says

Minimum wage was NEVER designed to be a living wage. It was designed to allow new workers to gain experience (hint: teenagers), and then work their way up the ladder.

And capitalism fucked up that social agreement.

NY Times: Minimum Wage: Who Makes It?

Minimum-wage workers are older than they used to be. Their average age is 35, and 88 percent are at least 20 years old. Half are older than 30, and about a third are at least 40.

Most — 54 percent — work full-time schedules (at least 35 hours per week), and another 32 percent work at least half time (20-34 hours per week).

About one-quarter (27 percent) of these low-wage workers are parents, compared with 34 percent of all workers. In all, 19 percent of children in the United States have a parent who would benefit from the increase.

If the justification for low minimum wage was that "it's only teenagers getting work experience and teaching the value of work ethic", then that justification no longer applies. Capitalism has violated the premise, so the conclusion is no longer valid.

Ironman says

If you're 30 years old working for minimum wage, you have a lot bigger personal issues than the wages.

The issue isn't personal. The issue applies to tens of millions of Americans and is a deep and systemic economic problem. You are simply an ignorant fool.

Low-wage jobs are taking over the American economy

The fastest-growing occupations are low-wage jobs that contribute to this trend: "Among the top 10 occupations with the most projected job openings, just one has a median wage greater than $15 an hour. The four occupations with the greatest projected number of job openings are in retail and food service, with median wages ranging between $8.81 and $10.16 an hour." The upshot is that the vast majority of people looking for work aren't going to find jobs that pay a living wage because those jobs do not exist.

This is just one of the reasons it's not enough to say "I want people to have something better than the minimum wage" while opposing an increased minimum wage. The American economy is like a game of musical chairs, and there will be nowhere near enough good-job chairs to go around as long as chair availability is determined by corporate CEOs. That's why the government needs to step in to improve the situation dramatically.

Thanks to shitty capitalism, good paying, productive jobs like those in STEM are shipped off to third world nation while shitty, low-pay service industry are the only ones left in America. That's no the fault of the average American. It's the fault of the owner class, the politicians in their pockets, and idiots who vote Republican or for Hillary.

Dan8267 says

I fail to see how letting one class do no work and siphon off as much productivity from another class is an optimal economic system.

Isn't that the idea behind the basic income guarantee? Do no work, get paid anyway?

says

In the rare case, I have to mostly agree with ironman. In

This is why Hillary started with $12. Bernie squeezed her for $15.

. By the time anything is passed, it will be compromised down to around $10.

says

Dan8267 says

I fail to see how letting one class do no work and siphon off as much productivity from another class is an optimal economic system.

Isn't that the idea behind the basic income guarantee? Do no work, get paid anyway?

Dan thinks those who work with their muscles should get paid more than those who work with their minds. Working smarter is what makes you more productive, not necessarily working harder.

Cash under the table slave wages will become common.

says

Cash under the table slave wages will become common.

says

1. Welfare rolls will go up.

2. Crime will increase.

3. Prices of basic necessities will increase.

4. Illegal immigration will increase, because the higher wages will attract more illegal aliens.

says

Dan says

Ironman says

If you're 30 years old working for minimum wage, you have a lot bigger personal issues than the wages.

The issue isn't personal. The issue applies to tens of millions of Americans and is a deep and systemic economic problem. You are simply an ignorant fool.

Wrong again, Danny boy

The issue applies to tens of millions because THEY didn't put in the effort to climb up the ladder, but chose to be slugs, putting in the bare minimum effort.

Some of them did not even put in the effort to finish high school. They basically quit at the bottom of the ladder. How are they even gonna get minimum wages when they are competing with robots and hard working illegal aliens? Hello welfare.

says

Thanks to shitty capitalism, good paying, productive jobs like those in STEM are shipped off to third world nation while shitty, low-pay service industry are the only ones left in America.

Isn't everything basically a service? If I build a brick wall for you, I've done you a service to build the wall. If I produce the bricks for the wall, my service is making/producing the bricks. If I mine the materials to make the brick, it is a service to do the mining. I mean I know what you 'mean' but even in your cubicle coding, that is a service - to produce the code to make a program (or machine) run.

As for capitalism, if I offer a job at a dollar an hour but everyone thinks the pay is too low, no one will accept the job and I will be forced to raise the pay till someone accepts it. On the other side of the coin, if the government tells me that the minimum I can pay is $15 an hour, there many jobs that are not worth $15, it becomes easier to initially invest a large load of money up front and automate the job, thereby saving me the hassle of bad workers, having to find and train workers, worrying if the workers will show up, etc. However, it also provides more jobs for people who program and fix those machines.

And I agree with Iron Man - minimum wage use to be the place where young people with no skills, no experience, pretty much no nothing were able to enter the work force. They learned things the basic of which were 'Man, I don't want to do something like this the rest of my life' and what it's like to follow orders, show up on time, be held accountable for work assigned to you. However, at $15 an hour, that is a lot to pay to teach those lessons. There are a LOT of ways out but too many people have far too many excuses as to why a way out won't work for them (don't want to do that type of work, don't want to live there (where the jobs are), don't like the hours, don't like the days I have to work - etc, etc, etc).

says

And I agree with Iron Man - minimum wage use to be the place where young people with no skills, no experience, pretty much no nothing were able to enter the work force. They learned things the basic of which were 'Man, I don't want to do something like this the rest of my life' and what it's like to follow orders, show up on time, be held accountable for work assigned to you. However, at $15 an hour, that is a lot to pay to teach those lessons. There are a LOT of ways out but too many people have far too many excuses as to why a way out won't work for them (don't want to do that type of work, don't want to live there (where the jobs are), don't like the hours, don't like the days I have to work - etc, etc, etc).

Dan does not understand these things. He is just like Chavez of Venezuela. Screw up, and blame someone else.

says

says

Dan does not understand these things. He is just like Chavez of Venezuela. Screw up, and blame someone else.

That's because Dan has never owned a business, never been in a position of authority or a manager, never had to hire or fire an employee and never has had budgetary responsibilities. When all you do is run on the hamster wheel in your cubicle and complain about how much the CEO makes, he is what you get. I saw this picture of him at work:

A cranky old man with no future.

says

That's exactly what works wonderfully for me now. I only do cash deals now

That's because no one wants to pay for a blow job with their credit card.

This is just so ridiculous. Either a job is worth paying a certain amount for it or it isn't. If people are willing to do the job at a lower rate then that is the value of the job. Period. Anything else is welfare or a charitable contribution. Why are we forcing small business owners to make charitable contributions without the requisite tax deduction?

rando says

Isn't that the idea behind the basic income guarantee? Do no work, get paid anyway?

It depends on how the basic income is implemented. If it's implemented the way executive pay and owner income is implemented, namely by siphoning the active wealth production of others, then yes. If a basic income is implemented by sharing the wealth created by automation, then no. The owners of automation did not design, create, refine, or maintain the automations, STEM workers did. One could argue that STEM workers should therefore reap the sole benefits of these automations, but that is not the system we have or ever will. So why not let the whole of society reap the benefits of automation instead of letting such advancements cause poverty and stagnation? Let automation provide a guaranteed income that drives the virtuous cycle of consumption and production.

The problem with the rich isn't that they live in luxury without working. The problem is that they live in luxury on the backs of the rest of us. When Goldman Sachs makes billions, it comes from the pockets of many who did no wrong including you.

turtledove says

If people are willing to do the job at a lower rate then that is the value of the job.

No, that is exactly not true. A job's worth is determine by the wealth it produces not how little you get get a worker to settle for by setting up the laws so that the worker has no power.

The pay you should question is that of the owner and executive. How necessary is the "job" of owning?

mmmarvel says

Isn't everything basically a service? If I build a brick wall for you, I've done you a service to build the wall.

You can define everything as a good using the same technique. If I clean your house for you, I've sold you the good of cleanliness.

The point is there is a big difference between no skill manual labor and highly skilled technology jobs. It's a material difference in the nature of the economy created and the prosperity of the people in that economy. It's foolish for the U.S. to sell off all the intellectual assets (read people with skills) to developing nations. The superpower of the 21st century will be determined by economics, not military might. So which do you prefer as our masters, China or India?

mmmarvel says

As for capitalism, if I offer a job at a dollar an hour but everyone thinks the pay is too low, no one will accept the job and I will be forced to raise the pay till someone accepts it.

The hypothesis that the most efficient allocation occurs when every player tries to exploit every other player as much as he can get away with only works if all players have equal power, and clearly they do not.

Ironman says

That's because Dan has never owned a business, never been in a position of authority or a manager, never had to hire or fire an employee and never has had budgetary responsibilities.

I've done all the above except fire. Shows what a #whinyLittleBitch like you knows.

I doubt you ever produced anything in your life except butt hurt in goats.

Dan8267 says

Let automation provide a guaranteed income that drives the virtuous cycle of consumption and production.

But what exactly would you tax to tax only this automation profit?

The details are hard. Georgism is pretty simple by comparison: tax non-productive rent seeking, especially rent on land. Do not tax productive work at all.

rando says

But what exactly would you tax to tax only this automation profit?

The details are hard. Georgism is pretty simple by comparison: tax non-productive rent seeking, especially rent on land.

How about a vice tax, and a tax on fossil fuels, and luxury items.

Strategist says

How about a vice tax

Wait, no vice taxes! That would suck all the fun out of life.

rando says

Strategist says

How about a vice tax

Wait, no vice taxes! That would suck all the fun out of life.

Yeah, poor Rin would go broke.

Looks like I pissed off #whinyLittleBitch. I guess he'll send me that invite to his house now. Oh no, he won't because he's a lying coward.

rando says

But what exactly would you tax to tax only this automation profit?

I'd rather replace privately owned automation with publicly owned automation. For example, 95% of banking is boring standard stuff that computers do without human interference. Why can't there be a national non-profit bank that does all basic banking functions: checking, savings, credit/debit card, etc?

Similarly, a public wifi system available to all. It would require very little active management as computers do all the jobs.

rando says

The details are hard. Georgism is pretty simple by comparison: tax non-productive rent seeking, especially rent on land. Do not tax productive work at all.

Georgism is definitely the way to do for supporting most public expenses like defense, infrastructure, government, etc. However, I think Georgism needs to be brought into the 21st century. It's not just a land tax, although land is still the largest public resource used by private individuals. Geostationary orbits, the EM spectrum, waterways, etc. are all public resources often used by private owners. A carbon and a methane tax would also fall into this umbrella.

Tax stuff that imposes a cost on society. Don't tax stuff that doesn't consume public property. So tax land and emissions, but not buildings and income.

Dan8267 says

Why can't there be a national non-profit bank that does all basic banking functions: checking, savings, credit/debit card, etc?

Woah, that's the kind of talk that gets bankers angry! The post office does that kind of stuff in Germany, and lots of people use it.

But now that we're on it, why are there so many health insurance companies? Do they actually even compete at all?

Mostly I agree with you though. Georgism should not be just about land, but about all natural resources, like EM spectrum. No one created it, so why do some people get to profit from owning it?

rando says

But now that we're on it, why are there so many health insurance companies?

There is no need for health insurance companies at all. Health insurance should be completely nationalized as the private sector isn't adding any value whatsoever. Risk goes to zero when you have a million people in your pool, nonetheless 310 million. As such, there is no reason for profit streams in health insurance. It's a non-wealth-producing industry that doesn't mitigate risk, even in theory, better than a social program could. And the whole system could be automated.

Think of the savings in advertisements, fighting claims, and administrative costs.

This is another case of politicians buying votes. Which is the problem where the decision makers pay no price for lying. Even bigger when you have a more centralized government.

turtledove says

This is just so ridiculous. Either a job is worth paying a certain amount for it or it isn't. If people are willing to do the job at a lower rate then that is the value of the job. Period. Anything else is welfare or a charitable contribution. Why are we forcing small business owners to make charitable contributions without the requisite tax deduction?

More like extortion.

Dan8267 says

The issue applies to tens of millions of Americans and is a deep and systemic economic problem.

Despite the aforementioned's poverty levels, the level of sloth and gluttony in many cases is staggering

Just curious, have any of the people that fit your description ever approach you looking for a job? If so, without a guaranteed basic income and at will employment, would you hire them?

Lastly, how many of these individuals have you even come across in your life? In boca, I doubt many

MMR says

Despite the aforementioned's poverty levels, the level of sloth and gluttony in many cases is staggering

The reality is that these people collect welfare and work under the table at the same time.

indigenous says

welfare and work under the table at the same time.

If they were truly making enough to get off welfare and chose to do it, then it would be bad. The bigger problem is that people are disincentivized from working at all.

How much can legitimate small business owner run companies that have bookkeepers, accountants and taxes to pay annually afford to pay off the books? Outside of the restaurant business, I can't think of any off top of head

France is lousy with this problem in the US construction, restaurants, small manufacturing, day labor, gardeners, anyone who does residential work as there are no 1099s issued, etc etc

There are currently 10 million on permanent disability what percentage of them also work???