Hardly ridiculous. I recommend everyone try it. I had plenty of time for entertainment. Of course, ~half of MW earners work under 35 hours. Some of that is due to scheduling practices, buy I don’t know how to quantify that.
You are absolutely correct. I previously stated I’m in favor of aid programs. Most MW earners are not poor. Most are young, even if not as young as in past years. I fully support assisting the MW earners who cannot work more and who are poor.
I have no minimum wage employees. If I did, any government aid to workers would not increase my profitability. Thus there is no subsidy.
I’m happy to pay for that aid with taxes on my income. If the goal is to help the people who need help, which is not the set of people making MW, then let’s help the people who need help. Only if you care about poor people, that is.
Well, finding time for entertainment is certainly not my only consideration. I have a house to keep clean, laundry that never seems to end, yard work to do, grocery shopping to do, cooking for myself. Then I need time to eat, sleep and bath. Just to name a few things that need doing every day.
Also, what on earth would happen to our unemployment rate if 70 hours was the norm.
Personally, I’m fine with helping poor people through taxes instead, but if I understand things correctly, the folks against a livable wage are also against any changes to our tax structure. They are against pretty much any social safety network at all.
You mention yard work. What if another employee lived in an apartment where he didn’t need to do yard work? Why does your need to do yard work come into the calculus of your wage in an employment contract?
Who says 40 hours per week is the sweet spot? Who not 35, 30, 55, or 60?
What does your personal situation have to do with the (hypothetical) me offering you an employment contract? Why is it different that the offer to buy food from a grocer? I need $X worth of food, but only have $Y in my pocket. Why can’t we force the grocer to provide $X worth of food?
Raising the minimum wage is a popular idea among liberals - and there’s nothing particularly terrible about it. The idea is that if you’re working, you should be making enough to live on.
But the best way to raise wages for low-paid workers is full-employment.
The job marketplace is like any other market. It is controlled by the law of supply and demand.
Changing the unemployment rate - specifically: reducing it - changes the dynamic of the job market, so that it is employers competing for workers, rather than workers competing for employment.
When employers are competing for workers, they must pay more, and offer better benefits: that happens regardless of minimum wage rules.
It - full employment - has the additional benefit of making everyone in the country richer: because our national wealth is a function of the number of people working and the amount of work they do.
Full employment is what liberals should be pushing for; not raising minimum wages.
But your employee’s offer you more than the “value of their service”. Can you run the business by yourself? What if none of your employee’s came to work? How long would your business last then?
You are not going to impress me by parroting the words free market and the market demands. That is just what people say when they want to say something callous and not look like they are greedy or selfish.