Hacker News Reader

Comment by jkingsbery | Hacker News Reader

Many good points, and not paying the legally set minimum wage seems like it's breaking the law (or at least skirting it). But I don't see how "Goodwill has actively fought against legislative proposals to raise the minimum wage" is inherently "Dark" - it might be self serving, but it's possible that it could also lead to layoffs and store closures. Whether or not that's actually the case seems like something that people of, ahem, good will can reasonably debate without labeling each other "dark" or "evil."

View on HN

I agree that fighting the minimum wage is not "dark". If two able-minded parties voluntarily agree on a wage, then no one should be able to tell them what the correct wage should be. The minimum wage may prevent a lower-skilled worker from getting a job, because an employer would only pay a higher wage to a higher-skilled worker.

If two able-minded parties voluntarily agree on a wage, then no one should be able to tell them what the correct wage should be.

That opens up the door for so much exploitation that it boggles the mind someone could truly believe that.

Do you support the repeal of minimum wage laws? What about workplace safety laws? Laws that limit the number of hours demanded by the employer?

Incredible.

US labor law has specifically allowed paying disabled people below the minimum wage for as long as the minimum wage has existed.

My brother has cerebral palsy and works below minimum wage. I'm grateful that he has a job to give him a sense of responsibility and to learn basic skills. Would it be great for him to earn more money? Sure, but his output is probably not worth minimum wage and that's okay.

We should not be putting economics on a higher pedestal than doing the right thing. Your brother is entitled to the same rights that you are.

Well what the right thing to do depends on whether we're thinking idealistically or pragmatically. Idealistically everyone deserves the same right to minimum wage protection. But if we followed our ideals in this situation then most disabled folks wouldn't be hired at all.

So what's the 'right' thing to do? I don't know what you mean by putting economics on a higher pedestal. If something isn't economically sustainable then what does it even mean to do the right thing?

The right thing to do is for the minimum wage to be the minimum wage, regardless of ability. In the event you can't make minimum wage, government safety nets kick in.

But you're not really addressing the actual problem that the GP was stating. Disabled individuals want to be gainfully employed, but under the minimum wage law no one would hire them.

Your 'right thing to do' just negatively disrupted the lives of most disabled folks without much benefit other than upholding your ideal.

I disagree: the right thing is to let the minimum income be the minimum income, regardless of employment [0], and let market value of labor set wages.

[0] But wages should always be on top of minimum income, because otherwise there is a range at the bottom with no marginal incentive to do economically valuable work.

Before the minimum wage was introduced the market didn't do a very good job of ensuring workers had a livable income.

>Your brother is entitled to the same rights that you are.

The right in question is a means to an end - financial security. Universal healthcare and a strong safety net accomplish the same thing.

It's unreasonable condition the financial security of people with disabilities on their working.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com