> The real problem is that the law lets companies pay so many people so little to begin with.
Economists pretty much across the board disagree with you.
If you don’t allow companies to pay market rate for low-value labor, they’re simply not going to hire those people at all. They’re not going to lose money paying $15/hr (or whatever) for a job that only nets them half that.
All a “minimum wage” law actually does is eliminate categories of employment available to people with low skills or ability. You’re not helping those people by unemploying them.
What do economists have to say say about the living conditions, healthcare, lifespan, and overall societal contributions of people paid less than minimum wage? From what you said it seems they're fine with lawless favelas as long as the strawberries get to the markets the economists shop at.
Your position that people are hurt by not having access to what is essentially slavery, because that is precisely what you're advocating for here, hurts people is absurd. Minimum wage laws put a floor on just how much you can abuse your staff. The fact that you don't understand this shows that you take your considerable privilege for granted without even appreciating it.
> the living conditions, healthcare, lifespan, and overall societal contributions of people paid less than minimum wage?
You’ve obviously not grasped the point - these people are not paid “less than minimum wage” - they are paid nothing, zero, because well-intentioned but economically clueless people have decided that it’s not morally proper for low-skilled people to make whatever their labor is worth.
> Minimum wage laws put a floor on just how much you can abuse your staff
No, it puts a floor on who is employable, hurting the least capable people the most.
> you take your considerable privilege for granted
Chastising me doesn’t work - try again with a reasonable economic/utilitarian argument. Thus far you haven’t said anything to suggest you’re approaching this from any kind of reasonable framework.
Incorrect. Disability, social security, etc are payments. Payments that we all bear when people, rightfully, opt out of this oppressive, toxic, dog eat dog workforce. Or worse, when someone's body is sacrificed for the sake of profits. If you're getting rid of minimum wage you should probably get rid of all social safety nets to deal with perverse incentives.
>because well-intentioned but economically clueless people have decided that it’s not morally proper for low-skilled people to make whatever their labor is worth.
eesh. Let's play out what happens when you treat human beings like livestock, from living memory: We get the company town(1). We get China's foxconn suicides(2). We get slave labor camps (active in China and the United states, like today, right now(3,4)). Then, or concurrently we get death camps for the infirm(5); if we can't hope to pay even a subsistence wage for all labor then how can we possibly allow these parasites to live on, homeless and impoverished, with the ills those kind bring to a civilized land.
>No, it puts a floor on who is employable, hurting the least capable people the most.
That's merely a point of debate, not a fact, as you suggest(6). In light of the cited history I've outlined, I would argue that such an argument is debunked and does not merit further discussion without extraordinary evidence.
In regards to your last statement. What you've arguing for has been tried before, and is explained, with citations, for you to read at your leisure, on the Wikipedia page for minimum wage. I beg that you take a cursory examination of the available history and literature. I would rather like to avoid repeating the bloody mistakes of history.
This is probably the (unintentionally) funniest comment I’ve ever seen on this site - you don’t have any coherent understanding of the economics of price controls, so you just go on about Communist China and and the Holocaust. Surely at some level you realize this is embarrassing?
> how can we possibly allow these parasites to live on
Private charity is and always has been more effective than government welfare, although the proponents of government welfare would like you to believe otherwise. With the elimination of the rule against perpetuities in the West, the Waqf model would be a superior solution to what we have now.
>This is probably the (unintentionally) funniest comment I’ve ever seen on this site -
I'm glad you're having fun. None of these topics are laughing matters, but, like the insults you're throwing, they're not novel either.
>you don’t have any coherent understanding of the economics of price controls
If you had 'coherent arguments' or citations, you would not lower yourself to attacking me instead of my arguments.
>so you just go on about Communist China and and the Holocaust.
If you'd bother to consider my arguments you'll find that my citations are in fact real world examples of what happens when people with ideas like yours take power.
>Surely at some level you realize this is embarrassing?
yawn if I'm wrong, prove it
If you had cogent arguments you would've made them instead of attacking me and moving the goalposts.
>Private charity is and always has been more effective than government welfare, although the proponents of government welfare would like you to believe otherwise. With the elimination of the rule against perpetuities in the West, the Waqf model would be a superior solution to what we have now.
Debunked(1).
Regardless, if you're just going to keep repeating years debunked tea party talking points I'm happy to keep correcting you.
Economists pretty much across the board disagree with you.
If you don’t allow companies to pay market rate for low-value labor, they’re simply not going to hire those people at all. They’re not going to lose money paying $15/hr (or whatever) for a job that only nets them half that.
All a “minimum wage” law actually does is eliminate categories of employment available to people with low skills or ability. You’re not helping those people by unemploying them.