Hacker News Reader

Here's a counter-argument: if people are taking jobs that don't cover their cost of living, and the government is having to step in to subsidize them, then that's effectively a subsidy from the government to the company's bottom line.

In general, we Americans believe in the free market, but we also believe that we need limits on what people can legally contract for. For example, we don't let people sell organs. We don't let people sell themselves into slavery. We don't let people put their pre-teen children to work. And we do indeed have a minimum wage. Do you feel like we should abolish the minimum wage altogether, or just that it shouldn't be $15/hour. If so, why?

It’s not the role of every job to provide a livable income.

How many people on HN wouldn’t have a job at all if their company wasn’t subsidized by VCs?

There was an article posted here a few months ago that the average 7/11 owner makes $35K a year and that’s with them putting in 60+ hour weeks. Most small business owners aren’t getting rich.

Actually, I wouldn’t be completely opposed to abolishing the minimum wage and having a universal basic income.

"How many people on HN wouldn’t have a job at all if their company wasn’t subsidized by VCs?"

VCs aren't taxpayers. We're not getting equity or an upside in McDonalds paying below poverty wages.

Well, seeing that a lot of public pensions invest in both private equity and public stocks, what’s the difference? Your government is still taking the same amount of risk.

Let me tell you about a personal anecdote:

My mom retired from teaching probably about 15 years ago. She was approached a year later about working for a program with the school system for at risk kids. It was based on a federal government grant. When she did the math, she would only be able to work about 10 or 15 hours a week at the rate they agreed to pay her and it not affect her teacher’s pension. She volunteered to take a pay cut - that was under $15 an hour - so she could work more hours and actually help the students. Should she not be allowed to voluntarily work for less?

My own wife when we met was working a job that allowed her to support herself and her (now our) two kids and live in one of the best school districts in the area. She voluntarily took a lower paying and lower stress job that again was less than $15 an hour so she could be on the school schedule.

On a less anecdotal level, there are freelancers in California who are complaining that the government “stepping in” to “help” Uber drivers has made it harder for them to stay freelancers. Jason Snell the former editor of MacWorld who gave up his job to go freelance said the law made it more complicated for him.

I mentioned before that the average 7/11 owner makes $35K a year and puts in 60+ hour weeks. What do you think is going to happen if he is forced to pay $15 an hour? Have you seen the balance sheet of the average small business? Not everyone gets to be subsidized by Big Daddy VC while losing millions of dollars.

Anytime you have government unnecessarily involved in price fixing you get unintended consequences.

> It’s not the role of every job to provide a livable income.

It’s the role of the economy for someone to get a livable income if that’s what they’re seeking. If it’s not working then it needs a nudge.

What standard of living do you consider "livable" and what percentage of the 7.7 Billion people on the planet actually live at that standard?

The "living wage" thing is a marketing weasel phrase. It's intentionally non-specific and encourages the listener to fill in their own idea of what kind of lifestyle a "living wage" entails. I would encourage everyone to ignore "living wage" marketing weasel-speak and only listen to concrete, specific goals.

Try at the very minimum matching to inflation, and adjusting the current wage to what it would be if it were. Then all you have to decide is whether the minimum wage should’ve been a thing in the first place.

I feel like there's a lot of assumptions in that suggestion that I don't necessarily accept. The biggest is the assumption that the minimum wage sets the market rather than the market setting the minimum wage. I believe the market conditions during a period of time have heavy influence on the legislated minimum wage.

Imagine if 50 years ago you could easily import millions of impoverished people willing to work for a lower wage and could also force your local worker to compete against a $0.15/day ($1 in 2019 adjusted for inflation back to 1970) foreign worker. Do you think that would have impacted 1970s minimum wage regulations? I do.

The market doesn’t set the minimum wage. The market actively pushes wages down, as we’ve seen even with a very small unemployment rate wages haven’t gone up.

What do you think the market is aside from the cumulative actions of all of the individuals in the economy such as workers (voters) and businesses?

Why do you believe workers/voters were able to demand a higher minimum wage 50 years ago? I explained what I think changed, I'm curious to know your thoughts.

The “living wage” would be different for someone with no dependents and no health problems than someone who has health problems and/or kids.

When I read "living wage" I parse it very literally. It sounds like something close to "capable of purchasing just enough food calories for one person to live." It certainly would not afford you luxuries like having children.

I'm sure that's not what most people are intending to communicate, but I think that's a good starting point to demonstrate how meaningless the phrase "living wage" really is.

Well, you can buy a lot of food calories cheaply from McDonalds....

http://freakonomics.com/2013/03/21/the-most-bountiful-food-i...

Sure, but there are ways to do this that aren't forcing every single job in said economy to provide that type of income.

So should we force companies to pay a “livable income” for the teenager staying at home? The couple with two small kids and the mom staying at home to raise them? The single mom who has to raise three or four kids on her own? The single person in the story who needs expensive medical care to stay alive?

Yes. Because people who need jobs to live shouldn’t have to suffer for those people you mentioned. All those people you mentioned it’s a fucking optional thing - don’t optimize for the optional.

So it’s “optional” for the single mom who was married and whose husband left/died? Is it “optional” in any circumstance for the kids?

She should get a living wage. The kids should take less hours so they have more time to do things other than being a wage slave. Everyone who works should get a living wage.

If everyone has a living wage, the businesses will do better because people will have more money to spend. That’s the point of investment. Our economy is built off of the consumer, who has been stagnating for decades. We could be doing far better with a stronger middle class.

So since the living wage is different for a single mom with two kids than a single person living alone, should the minimum wage be different for one than the other?

No, she should get different assistance for her situation, or if not, then yes.

Sure, why not? There’s a ridiculous amount of money out there, but people are squabbling over pennies.

So now when you apply for a job they should base your pay on your household situation? If one person is single and the other is a single mom with three kids, the company should pay more?

Should they also get paid more if one has a medical condition and the other doesn’t?

Again, why not?

Hence a universal basic income.

> This by far not a popular opinion, but some jobs aren’t worth $15 an hour. We shouldn’t force social policy on private corporations.

Some jobs aren't worth doing, thats for sure. We decided that if a job isn't worth paying someone $15 an hour to do, it's not worth someone doing. The market can figure that out.

We're forcing the policy on the worker as much as the corporation, they cannot sell their labor for less than $15 an hour either. We, as society, are saying "if the market says you aren't worth >$15/hour go to school until you are" as thats the best use of everyone's time.

Arguing that teenagers deserve less protections against exploitation of their labor is arguing we should go back to pre-industrial revolution policies.

I'm also not sure what your point about the EITC is, it gives different amounts of tax credits to adults depending on if they have kids or not recognizing that parenting costs money. You have to be aged 25-65 to claim it if you don't have kids yourself, so teenagers who work do not benefit from it directly. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit

I know. I’m saying it should be more generous and easier to receive throughout the year.

I think this is probably correct but it seems entirely incompatible with modern American society.

As an outsider it seems like the way Americans think is "If you don't earn enough its because you didn't work hard enough" And any of your suggestions go against the idea of personal responsibility that is held so strongly.

I think what you are arguing for is we raise minimum wage for adults to a living wage but keep it low for minors claimed as dependents. We should force social policy on private corporations when they are being deliberately exploitative.

And the only reason that people who are working for money losing startups aren’t being “exploited” is because of the access to venture capital. And VCs get a lot of money from public pensions. If low margin businesses don’t “deserve” to be in business, neither do companies losing billions a year.

This is a capex vs opex question. Raise minimum wage enough and firms cross the border to investing in capex such that they replace employees.

If they’re on the fence already, then they should be doing it. A few hundred dollars a day means next to nothing to McDonald’s, and everything to the workers. Don’t hold the threat of automation over them, if it’s gonna happen rip the bandaid off.

It’s not a matter of a few hundred dollars a day. It’s a matter of whether the decision to replace workers is NPV positive. It’s clearly only so up until the point they are at now with the kiosks.

A few hundred a day means a lot to the franchise owner. It really means a lot to the mom and pop pizzeria down the street or the owner of the convenience store.

And the plantation owner. Cheap labor is not a right.

I’ve asked this before, how much “labor” could the average money losing, VC backed, startup afford?

Cheap and quality public housing along with good transportation options will go a long way in reducing poverty.

Unfortunately, it is either cheap or quality. And news flash, as someone who just recently built a new home, even the "expensive" stuff is hardly "quality" these days. We are paying more for homes with cheaper, younger, less treated wood that rots and warps faster (partially thanks to over-regulation). Majority of what is being thrown up in my city are 450-700k+ McMansions that are "stick built" and will almost assuredly have a host of problems in the near term.

Quality is just so rare these days. Everything is built to be replaced in 5-10 years.

American homes are a sham. My grandmother's home back in Greece is 180 years old at this point and I fully expect it to outlast my current home.