gavin wrote:Until the day where machines do all or most of our work to the point where the individual does not need to work, the individuals who lose the jobs will only be put out by it. However, if you don't care about the individual then this is quite another thing from paying the worker more.
This would be no problem as long as the difference between the cost of the machine and the cost of the worker arrives at the general population. For instance, retirement age and maximum hours per week could be continuously lowered to reduce the supply of labor.
By magic? You're telling me that individuals who work on strawberry farms for minimum wage are then going to the store and buy strawberries at a greater rate than the number of people who don't buy them because of the price decrease? No, I've worked strawberry fields, you get sick of the berries fast. Workers do eat as they go.
The minimum wage affects not only strawberries, but basically every good or service under the sun.
1. Again, employers in an industry in which it is unprofitable to pay workers minimum wage are not necessarily bad employers. The market pressures are often to blame and you really can't change that.
If nobody else can pay their workers less than X, there is no need for you to pay them less than X.
2. No one is ever forced to take a job.
Of course they are. If they don't take the job, they don't get any welfare payments and can't sustain themselves anymore.
However, in this case they are actually getting paid a living wage for the job they're doing. Let's say the living wage is $8 and your job pays $5. If the government covers the other $3 it's BECAUSE the individual is working and so they are actually getting paid minimum wage anyways.
With minimum wage, the employer would be forced to pay $8, and the government would save $3.
The problem is that we haven't established what percentage of revenue is just to take home and how much is just taking advantage of poor workers and a government that will subsidize.
I don't get that; please rephrase.