Hacker News Reader

Comment by sce | Hacker News Reader

In the case of minimum wage, they would indeed be forced to pay more, rendering the need for welfare to those same people unnecessary, thus shifting the cost from the state/government to the employer.

That is in effect wealth distribution, which again closes the big income inequality. (That's the intended effect anyway.)

View on HN

> thus shifting the cost from the state/government to the employer.

This would simply shift the cost from the state/government (read taxpayer) to end consumers (read taxpayer).

If the employer responds by increasing the prices of the goods/services they sell, then yes. However, in the market the consumers have a choice, so they can choose to not buy something, or buy somewhere else, and the market thus regulates itself. Don't want to pay taxes? Not much choice there. So I think having the market regulate itself is better than enforcing the cost of labor through taxes. (Who knows, maybe the employers would be forced to cut their margins even.)

beagle3 argued that in a world without welfare, Wal-Mart would have to pay more or their employees would be unable to work due to lack of basic necessities. I was only arguing against that assertion.

I was merely paraphrasing my understanding of sanders' argument.

But the argument has merit if the wage is not livable. The two issues the make this an issue (or a nonissue) is what is a minimum livable wage, and whether or not it is the governments role to enforce that or not. (No idea about the first, I think Yes about the second)

Ya, I get that you were paraphrasing. And you did a fine job in my opinion, so my refutation was more aimed at Bernie than you.

With regards to enforcement of a minimum wage I would say that if we, as a society, want to enforce minimum living standards that is a burden that should fall on all of us and not just companies that employ low skilled labor.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com