Hacker News Reader

I guess you misread my example. Frank is not worth $15+ a hour. Thus a business will never hire him for a part time job because it is a net negative for the business at that price point but both Frank and the business would be willing to agree to a wage that is less than a living wage.

View on HN

Forget about working in a park. It's a job that is too demanding physically.

You misread the conclusion. There is no need to bring down the minimum wage for everyone, just because he doesn't need a full wage. He can simply work part time and get half the money.

I think we are disagreeing on terms. People support a living wage normally mean legally mandating that the minimum amount of money that is exchanged for an hour of labor is set to $X where X is higher than today's rate.

I gave two examples where increasing the hourly rate would make it so that the business would not hire the worker because it would provide negative value to the company.

Working half the hours does change the fact that each hour loses money for the company.

You were arguing for lowering the minimum wages. It doesn't need to be lowered in your examples.

I was arguing against setting the minimum wage to a living wage. I like the status quo of cities and states raising their minimum wage while the federal minimum lags behind. It's federalism in work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com