? Do you think that “solving” inflation means getting rid of it entirely, as in eliminating all tendency to gradual rise in prices over time?
Because that’s not what the minimum wage is designed to do, and AFAICT that’s not what economists think should be done about inflation. In fact, the consensus seems to be that over the past two decades or so, there hasn’t been enough inflation.
Physicians don’t have to accept Medicare patients to begin with so that’s pointless.
It shouldn’t be the responsibility of business to subsidize workers’ living situation.
Except that that’s kind of the whole point of the concept of “working for a living”.
I mean, if you can work full time and live responsibly and thriftily, and still not be able to afford adequate food, shelter, clothing, transportation and other necessities of civilized life, then the basic concept of “working for a living” is broken.
One’s bills are one’s personal responsibility. A person may have multiple jobs, be part of a multi-income family arrangement, be a child, be wealthy, etc. If I hire someone to cut my grass, the rate I’m willing to pay is not based on their electric bill.
But it can’t be true. A single man at 18 living with 2 roommates has a much lower cost of living than a single mother with 7 kids. Should an employer pay them the same? What if the 18 year old has a preference to spend all of his spare time in strip clubs so his costs are through the roof?
So, my and my spouse’s income is in the six figures and we have net worth of approximately 2.1 mil. If I’m bored and want to work on the weekends for a bit more pocket cash what would a living wage be?
Living wage is determined by average cost of living, not your individual personal situation. If you just want to avoid boredom with occasional casual gig work on the weekends, I don’t think the government really cares about the $20 or so that your neighbor slips you for cutting his grass.
I’m struggling to follow your logic here. So would that be $0 since you don’t need more to live on?
Right and that’s why it’s completely a meaningless slogan. It actually has negative utility.
Exactly. Living wage doesn’t mean anything and only distorts the labor market by pricing the least skilled out. That low cost labor doesn’t disappear. It’s merely relocated. But yay! We can feel compassionate with our support of said policy.
Like I said, living wage is determined by average cost of living. Yes, different individuals have differing needs, which is one reason it’s a good idea to have universal risk pools for things like health insurance where needs and expenditure can fluctuate wildly from individual to individual, based on random circumstances.
That’s also why it makes sense to have taxpayers fund a large part of the basic expenses of children, since children can’t provide for themselves financially, but it’s generally not practical for parents to sell or donate or destroy them if they turn out to be too expensive to keep.
That seems to be another obfuscatory way of saying that you just don’t like it. Plenty of people find “living wage” to be a meaningful and useful term in discussing employment, cost of living, and related issues.
Any kind of wage floor, as you already noted, has the effect of “pricing the least skilled out”. As with inflation, you seem to be laboring under the delusion that this effect is something that we ought to get rid of.
In reality, an economy in which prices can’t rise and in which “least skilled” workers labor for pennies an hour is not efficient. You’re just displacing the costs of actually supporting those workers away from their inefficient wage-earning and onto some subsidizing entity, so you can feel smug with your delusion of a “free market”.
In my youth I would have agreed with you. Then we had a certain political party in our nation tell us that people who get means tested aid are lazy, shiftless, add nothing to our society, suckle off the teat of the “job creators”. We’re told that they are what’s wrong with society, their poverty is their fault, their problem and why should those of us who actually support ourselves be forced to support their worthless uneducated asses? We’re also told that means tested aid is a freebie given away by socialists to redistribute income away from people who EARN it to people who absolutely don’t fucking deserve it.
These politicians have told us this since Jimmy Carter was president. So… no, you don’t get to claim that means tested aid is the solution you seek. That solution has been poisoned by politicians I suspect you wholeheartedly support.
Here’s your clue:
I mean, on a purely selfish level it’s pretty clever, gotta give 'em that. Out of one side of their mouths, conservatives extol the supposed “free market” structure of unregulated employment which will supposedly be shored up by means-tested aid to the “truly needy” “deserving poor”. Then out of the other side of their mouths, they constantly denigrate the recipients of means-tested aid as not really deserving or truly needy at all.
That way the self-righteous “self-supporters” can save all that money they’re “wasting” on social safety nets, and the poor can starve in the streets the way God intended.
It’s useful as a propagandist slogan. It’s no useful for rational economic policy if the goal is to maximize productivity. The use of China is no accident. It’s in part due to our counterproductive policy.
Bono is full of shit and his world view is distorted beyond belief. Ireland isn’t different from any other place in the world
Wrong and the math is bad as well. Supporting some of low market value is better than supporting all of no market value. Politically speaking, no one is going to run on the idea of a free market of labor. The propaganda of class warriors is too effective. That’s what makes all the so-called progressive tactics so effective. The power grab is cloaked with class or racial justice language that allows one using said cloak to attack detractors as evil.
That said, the US does not live in a vacuum and we have an ascendant power in China that will patiently and ruthlessly exploit our fundamental weaknesses.
True, it’s a deliberate decision for the purpose of keeping the food off the tablecloth.
If you actually meant to type another word in place of “use” there, would you mind clarifying what it was? And if you didn’t, would you mind clarifying wtf you’re trying to convey by the phrase “the use of China”?