Hacker News Reader

Comment by mschuster91 | Hacker News Reader

> If people aren't willing to do the job for the hourly wage alone with no tips, raise the wage until they are.

This would be the case in a normal free market, but unfortunately the labor market is not a free market as people don't have the choice to work or not to work - they need to work to survive.

As long as millions of people are out of a job, there will be millions desperate to work even for under minimum wage, ready to replace anyone who quits.

This is why there are two things needed - first, a minimum wage not defined in dollars (to account for rent and other CoL differences) but in "is enough to rent a decent home in the area and live without a second (or worse, third) job or government assistance programs", and second, a universal basic income that fulfills the same requirement. Only then, when people have the freedom of choice between working or not, will labor prices reflect the true value of the labor.

View on HN

This doesn't work.

Anyone can be a waitress or waiter. The labor is inherently low value because it's an easy job. Raising the minimum wage will just subsidize jobs that have less actual value and it will be a net loss to society.

UBI could work because it redistributes the overly concentrated wealth gained from technology from the ultra rich across society. But raising the minimum wage does not.

> Anyone can be a waitress or waiter. The labor is inherently low value because it's an easy job.

Having done a stint in barkeeping myself, it's not an easy job at all and there are many people who aren't cut for it. You have to be resilient enough to deal with all kinds of customers (the "Karen" meme is based in way too much reality) and their issues no matter how you are feeling yourself, it's a job that's quite taxing on your body and honestly it's exhausting.

> Raising the minimum wage will just subsidize jobs that have less actual value and it will be a net loss to society.

That reminds me of "A brief history of corporate whining" (https://i.imgur.com/NBSaqzi.png). When Germany introduced the minimum wage for the first time years ago, we had the same argument, and as expected it turned out to be nothing but whining.

Right now, the taxpayers are subsidizing jobs anyway: 70% (!!!) of SNAP/food stamps or Medicaid recipients work full time, with McDonald's and Walmart being in top spots (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/walmart-and-mcdonalds-among-...). These companies could also pay their workers a living wage and provide them with medical insurance and still be profitable!

So is picking fruits and vegetables. There is endless labor supply. If one doesn't work out you find another. It doesn't matter how hard people in the business think it is - it requires no credentials or education and there is no bar. That's just reality - I feel for people who have to work in that industry, but that's just life.

Your second argument is just, not a real argument. It ignores why the minimum wage could be raised. Subsidies work when other places of the economy can provide said subsidy. When the rest of the economy starts to suffer the subsidy can no longer be provided and the economy collapses - the USSR is a great example. The economy couldn't sustain itself, it collapsed. Now you want to raise the minimum wage, whenever the fed is pumping billions into the economy. The value of the dollar would plummet and inflation would go out of control.

> Right now, the taxpayers are subsidizing jobs anyway: 70% (!!!) of SNAP/food stamps or Medicaid recipients work full time, with McDonald's and Walmart being in top spots (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/walmart-and-mcdonalds-among-...). These companies could also pay their workers a living wage and provide them with medical insurance and still be profitable!

The reason this works is because cheap foreign labor/goods can subsidize walmart paying potential higher wages. If, globally, this minimum wage was mandated, walmart would not be able to afford it, no.

> It doesn't matter how hard people in the business think it is - it requires no credentials or education and there is no bar. That's just reality

It is indeed. But still, someone working on a farm full time should be able to live off of that income. If the farm cannot pay a living wage, its products are too cheap. If the farm can't get more for their product because foreign competition undercuts them - well, that is precisely for what tariffs were invented, to protect domestic industries from wage dumping.

Why?

You're asking a farmer to be subsidized by everyone else, but you're not saying why we should. Because economically, it's great that the farmer can have a living - not so great for the poor family that can't afford his overpriced produce.

Then the government should take care that minimum wage is high enough that people can afford healthy food.

Yeah, I have to object to the OPs tone... maybe it was unintentional. Not only is OP wrong about servers (would you quit your corporate gig if the pay was the same? I 100% would not), but I actually don't want to live in a world without bartenders/servers. I'd hate to have my meals come out of a mailslot, or whatever.

The tone is baseline. You're objecting because you "feel bad about it." We rich westerners like to self loath a lot - a lot of loathing, little action. Of course we all "feel bad" about it. But half the posts in this thread are more "I don't want to tip this server whom I love very much and we need oh so desperately!" Pretty contradictory.

Everyone cares for everyone else, until it's their pocketbook. That's why it's easy to say "raise the minimum wage!", it's just the new "pass the back." No skin off the rich SV developers back, as he types on his $1100 iPhone made with slave labor in china, in his slave labor clothes, etc.

The argument about "would I do this job" is the wrong argument. The argument is, CAN I do this job. And yes I can, and yes, most people can. Most people can not be developers. So why bother with the worthless platitude.

Also to - it is a strawman to suggest I don't want a world without servers. I just suggested that over-subsidizing them is bad for society, as a whole.

No, I was objecting to you saying the job is "easy", which is absolutely wrong and insulting. Also, I simply disagree that these jobs are "low value", ie "I don't want a world without servers". That's was part of an explanation for why I value them, so it's not really a strawman. It wasn't really meant as a core point, or characterization of the other side.

> Most people can not be developers

I don't agree with you there. I'm not 100% sure the numbers, but there's really nothing special about being good at programming. These arrogant attitudes give our profession a terrible reputation, then I have to go back to the real world, and deal with people that assume I'm like you before I even say a word.

No, it's "inherently low value" because most people can do it, and there will always be people desperate enough to do it. In fact they'll do worse jobs for less than a poverty wage, if given the opportunity. We could pack them into tiny boxes and send them underground to die of preventable diseases, then say they owe US money for the privilege. We enact labor laws because we can/have done this and find it distasteful. Being a server is not an "easy job". I wouldn't trade it for my developer job, even if the pay was equal.

The business and customer are getting an excellent deal because the model is anti-competitive and driven by human desperation and inequality. Which is why we have a minimum wage to limit the exploitation. The job isn't easy, and it is an important one. Restaurants for better, but mostly for worse, are staples of our society. They're valuable jobs.

These people are giving up their entire lives basically. All you have is time on this earth, and they're asked to give all of that for nothing, so you can live in the lap of luxury. I don't want to live in a world without bartenders and servers. I consider their work valuable, and think they deserve fair pay.

> No, it's "inherently low value" because most people can do it, and there will always be people desperate enough to do it.

AKA, an easy job. A job that most people can do.

> The business and customer are getting an excellent deal because the model is anti-competitive....

No, they get an excellent deal because they're easy jobs that anyone can do. If being a waiter was like being a mechanic, they'd get paid more. Pretty basic.

> These people are giving up their entire lives basically. All you have is time on this earth, and they're asked to give all of that for nothing, so you can live in the lap of luxury. I don't want to live in a world without bartenders and servers. I consider their work valuable, and think they deserve fair pay.

I hear you - but raising the minimum wage hurts small restaurants a lot. And don't pretend like it doesn't. It will. They'll feel it instantly, and many will fail because of it. It's better to redistribute wealth in other ways. This drastic min. wage hike will just end up being a regressive tax on the poor.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com