5 ms·

The point that you're ignoring is that most people working these "entry-level" jobs in fact DO depend on them to cover their living expenses. What you're sugge

The point that you're ignoring is that most people working these "entry-level" jobs in fact DO depend on them to cover their living expenses. What you're suggesting is to set those people in a race to the bottom along with the high school kid and retiree looking for "a little extra money". The point of setting a living wage is to set a bare minimum standard for employment. You'd also find that the same politicians pushing a for a minimum wage are the ones trying to address broken housing policies, but you'd have to do research instead of just complaining.

fennecfoxen 6y ago
No, that point that you're ignoring in pointing that out is that if they don't depend on these jobs then they're entirely unemployed. Chopping off the bottom of the labor market benefits a few people, yes, it just throws others who are less valuable to your political party into the abyss. > You'd also find that the same politicians pushing a for a minimum wage are the ones trying to address broken housing policies. Maybe, but not in New York and not in San Francisco. It's all "restrict the supply of housing" as if the laws of supply and demand are made up — indeed, they will deny supply and demand the same way a Koch-funded lobbyist tells you we should save the planet by burning more coal.
- gentaro 6y ago
  > No, that point that you're ignoring in pointing that out is that if they don't depend on these jobs then they're entirely unemployed. Those jobs don't disappear just because you mandate a living wage.
  - fennecfoxen 6y ago
    No, all jobs don't disappear. Some, however, do. Some are no longer profitable, more are replaced by capital investments. Economics denialism is quite strong in your circles, as I noted. It's even more of a pity because we should be investing capital in meaningful things, like biotech or space exploration or environmental progress or what-have-you, instead of on stupid things like robots and restaurant apps.
    - gentaro 6y ago
      > No, all jobs don't disappear. Some, however, do. Some are no longer profitable, more are replaced by capital investments. Economics denialism is quite strong in your circles, as I noted. Ok, now we're getting to the root of the problem. This is argument is based off of your misunderstanding of economics. What you're missing here is this: - Jobs are a function of demand. - Demand is driven by consumers. - Consumers need capital to drive demand - The poor spend proportionately to their income much more than the wealthy. That's the circle you need to be thinking about when you're asking yourself what the impact will be on jobs. The more you drive down living standards of the poor and middle class, the fewer jobs you will have, not the other way around.
      - fennecfoxen 6y ago
        > This is argument is based off of your misunderstanding of economics Your superior "understanding" of economics is at odds with academic consensus and with reality. > Consumers need capital to drive demand Replacing five McDonalds cashiers with two cashiers, an app, and a touchscreen ordering kiosk doesn't "drive demand".
        gentaro 6y ago
        > Your superior "understanding" of economics is at odds with academic consensus and with reality. And yet, you have no counterargument.
        fennecfoxen 6y ago
        the marginal cost of supplying argument has exceeded the marginal benefit (zero)
        gentaro 6y ago
        and the supplier is bankrupt.

fennecfoxen 6y ago

No, that point that you're ignoring in pointing that out is that if they don't depend on these jobs then they're entirely unemployed. Chopping off the bottom of the labor market benefits a few people, yes, it just throws others who are less valuable to your political party into the abyss. > You'd also find that the same politicians pushing a for a minimum wage are the ones trying to address broken housing policies. Maybe, but not in New York and not in San Francisco. It's all "restrict the supply of housing" as if the laws of supply and demand are made up — indeed, they will deny supply and demand the same way a Koch-funded lobbyist tells you we should save the planet by burning more coal.

gentaro 6y ago
> No, that point that you're ignoring in pointing that out is that if they don't depend on these jobs then they're entirely unemployed. Those jobs don't disappear just because you mandate a living wage.
- fennecfoxen 6y ago
  No, all jobs don't disappear. Some, however, do. Some are no longer profitable, more are replaced by capital investments. Economics denialism is quite strong in your circles, as I noted. It's even more of a pity because we should be investing capital in meaningful things, like biotech or space exploration or environmental progress or what-have-you, instead of on stupid things like robots and restaurant apps.
  - gentaro 6y ago
    > No, all jobs don't disappear. Some, however, do. Some are no longer profitable, more are replaced by capital investments. Economics denialism is quite strong in your circles, as I noted. Ok, now we're getting to the root of the problem. This is argument is based off of your misunderstanding of economics. What you're missing here is this: - Jobs are a function of demand. - Demand is driven by consumers. - Consumers need capital to drive demand - The poor spend proportionately to their income much more than the wealthy. That's the circle you need to be thinking about when you're asking yourself what the impact will be on jobs. The more you drive down living standards of the poor and middle class, the fewer jobs you will have, not the other way around.
    - fennecfoxen 6y ago
      > This is argument is based off of your misunderstanding of economics Your superior "understanding" of economics is at odds with academic consensus and with reality. > Consumers need capital to drive demand Replacing five McDonalds cashiers with two cashiers, an app, and a touchscreen ordering kiosk doesn't "drive demand".
      - gentaro 6y ago
        > Your superior "understanding" of economics is at odds with academic consensus and with reality. And yet, you have no counterargument.
        fennecfoxen 6y ago
        the marginal cost of supplying argument has exceeded the marginal benefit (zero)
        gentaro 6y ago
        and the supplier is bankrupt.