Hacker News Reader

Really? Do you really think everyone on welfare, or even a majority, are just lazy poor people living off the money earned by the glorious, noble, hard-working, libertarian class? Is it really that simple?

Of course not. They're just people responding to incentives to make the best choices they can. I don't judge anyone on welfare or not.

I think this "poor people are dumb animals and if we stopped giving the money they'd go get jobs" attitude is super fucked up.

Why did you throw the word "libertarian" in there? It makes absolutely no sense in that context.

It's not an unreasonable adjective to use; the makers/takers dichotomy is a mainstay of popular libertarianism in America.

"Between this and this recent minimum wage increase nonsense it seems like we're hell bent on just saying "To hell with what econ 101 says, this sounds good to me!""

There's a reason why economics goes beyond 101. It's a complex issue. The minimum wage should be increased. It should be tied to inflation.

Is there an argument there?

As far as I see it. The point is that a big wealth gap is detrimental to a society. Having a good minimum wage is a good way to reduce such a wealth gap.

Then why not raise it to $30/h? I'm serious.

Will those who previously made e.g. $20/h get a $10 raise or will their employer outsource/automate?

I've spent my life researching economics. If econ 101 solved all of our problems, I would be out of a job. People who think that way are dangerous. The world isn't black and white. It doesn't sound like you understand that.

No offense but it sounds like we'd better off without you working. If you think minimum wage laws don't harm anyone you're terribly mistaken. They invariably hurt marginal and low skilled workers. The very people you aim to help.

Econ 101 is a misnomer of course because economic understanding developed over thousands of years starting with Plato really (however misguided he was on the topic). There is much to learn still but it sounds like you are just looking in the wrong directions.

Is there an argument here?

Yes.

> If you think minimum wage laws don't harm anyone you're terribly mistaken.

I think this is not based on evidence. Not all minimun wage laws are bad. For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Wage_Act_1998...

I'm sure the minimum wage could be set to a level where it would do damage, but I don't believe that is necessarily so.

"No offense but it sounds like we'd better off without you working."

That's needlessly provocative, and one of the more absurd uses of "no offense" I've seen in recent times...

"If you think minimum wage laws don't harm anyone you're terribly mistaken."

I don't think the parent said that (at least anywhere I can find it up this thread). One can believe that a policy hurts some of those it intends to help, and still believe that it does on balance substantially more good than harm. You seem to be engaging in precisely the sort of black and white thinking that the parent was cautioning against.

With regards to minimum wage in particular, in isolation it clearly hurts those it excludes from the workforce in the short term. However, when assistence is frequently tied to "looking for work" and not turning down job offers, then things potentially change. I'm not at all sure that a general minimum wage is a better solution then saying "jobs below $X don't count toward assistance", but I'm not at all sure of the opposite, either.

None of what you said is coherent to me but I withdraw my comment that you rightly described as needlessly provocative and apologize for it.

Could you clarify what you don't understand about what I said? Sounds like at least one of us has some space to learn, here - quite possibly both.

The issue with that comment was that you were introducing off topic points that weren't previously discussed or defined. You mentioned assistance while mentioning "in isolation" as the basis for my analysis which is the only point in which my analysis could possibly be valid. If you start introducing variables outside the discussion it makes it hard if not impossible to seriously discuss the impact of a policy change or some market force change. For instance we can see that in general as supply increases the price will drop absent other factors. There are tons of factors that could be introduced to make my minimum wage argument invalid. For instance if the market wage is never practically below $5 then a minimum wage of $3.60 is unlikely to have an outcome (unless something changes).

The argument against the minimum wage is in the realm of deductive reason and not something you look around for proof of or proof against. It's basically the economics equivalent of 1+2=3. If there are problems with that equation we need to analyze it in its' space and not look around for cases when we think 1+2 != 3. The problem with verifying laws of economics is that we don't know what we're seeing the effects of in reality. Cultural, weather, moods, government policies, etc. could impact what we're seeing in data without it being clear why or how. Empiricism can inform our analysis or can give us new routes to inquiry on but it can't be used to argue for or against the laws of economics as we understand them. I'd avoid reading economic studies of anything for this very reason.

My point in pulling in other assistance was that we are not implementing a minimum wage in an environment without other assistance so your analysis of what happens when we implement a minimum wage in an environment without other assistance doesn't represent the real world.

Regarding the second half of your comment, it's certainly true that there can be confounding variables, but I think avoiding empiricism does far more harm to reasoning than relying upon it. There is an infinity of internally consistent models. Most of these will have nothing to do with reality. In order to tell which actually represent the world we're living in, we need to look at the world. Intuition alone has proven a poor guide in most other sciences.

> I find it so interesting that there are so many things being proposed by people entirely ignorant of political economy and contradictory to the most basic understanding of the profession.

Actually, the opposite is true.

1. There are many economists who support the idea of a basic income.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income#Origins

2. Many supporters of basic income are empiricists. Me, for example. I think it's an intriguing idea and that the trials so far have all shown good points.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/a-new-approach-to-...

What the idea needs now is more testing in the field.

If I might suggest, this is actually the problem with most of the arguments against basic income. People appear to have very strong beliefs about how the universe works and how economics works that are grounded in philosophic principles of fairness. Phrases like:

> This whole idea is a very naive scheme

> ... proposed by people entirely ignorant of political economy

> ... contradictory to the most basic understanding of the profession

> I keep hoping that the adults show up

... are all emotional reactions not supported by evidence.

Economics is, sadly, able to support lots of opinions, many contradictory. The only solution has to be based on real-world evidence from real-world trials. Either we'll find this idea will work or it won't, but I don't think your phrases above are currently strongly evidenced.