tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5769105654679766559.post8984576489605652092..comments2023-03-23T07:22:21.548-04:00Comments on Contrary Neal: Problematicity of minimum wages, part 2Nealhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05431420715969751323noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5769105654679766559.post-19357948825653168762012-11-29T20:00:15.201-05:002012-11-29T20:00:15.201-05:00Blog post coming soon detailing these measures.Blog post coming soon detailing these measures.Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05431420715969751323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5769105654679766559.post-63142459926671733572012-11-27T20:25:23.632-05:002012-11-27T20:25:23.632-05:00"do away with the minimum wage and replace it..."do away with the minimum wage and replace it with an anti-poverty measure that genuinely empowers the underprivileged"<br /><br />What are these measures of which you speak?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5769105654679766559.post-69512855608669997312012-11-27T20:24:26.564-05:002012-11-27T20:24:26.564-05:00I think your model of how this would work isn'...I think your model of how this would work isn't quite right. Getting rid of minimum wage wouldn't only result in having more people work, it would also mean people who are ALREADY working for minimum wage will be paid less. That's going to mean a lot of those people can't afford basic things anymore. Given that there's no where in the U.S. that you can work fewer than 63 hours a week for minimum wage and still afford a pretty basic apartment (http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/paying-rent-on-minimum-wage/), those people are going to either have to work more hours at the lower rate (taking the place of someone else who could be working), or they'll go on these other measures we currently have for the poor, e.g., unemployment, food stamps, etc. <br /><br />Also, think about WHO works minimum wage jobs. A lot of times those are the people who can "afford" to do so in a different sense than we mean of adults, supporting a family. Teenagers! Take a man or woman supporting a family with a minimum wage job. Suppose minimum wage is abolished, and that pay rate is dramatically lowered. The person with the family can no longer support their family on the new low rate, but guess who can take that job? A teenager of middle-class parents. They are already living with their parents, fed by their parents, clothed by their parents, taken to the doctor by their parents. They can "afford" in a time-for-money exchange to work for less than minimum wage because their money goes towards discretionary purchases. They take the job. any new jobs that can be created at this new low rate (let's say they even get double the hires) are also likely to be filled by teenagers, not the breadwinners. Is this good for the economy, or a moral good for society to make this exchange? I would argue definitely not. If we were to abolish minimum wage (which I think would be a huge mistake) we have to think about the fact that the exchanges we make to increase the number of employed do not necessarily increase the number of people we WANT to be employed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com