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.
VCs aren't taxpayers. We're not getting equity or an upside in McDonalds paying below poverty wages.
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 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.
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.
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.
http://freakonomics.com/2013/03/21/the-most-bountiful-food-i...
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.
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.
Should they also get paid more if one has a medical condition and the other doesn’t?
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.