Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> but the best that can be said is that it has no impact.

You're doing what you disavow here. If it doesn't affect the number of jobs, then it increases the value of that job. If you can sell a carrot for a dollar more, and still sell out of carrots, you have a increased the economic activity without increasing production. The same is true for hours.

This is not about increasing productivity. It's about increasing the share of that productivity that's paid out to workers.



I didn't say it doesn't have no impact on number of jobs. I said that the best that can be said is that it has no impact (I didn't say jobs here at all).

The government deciding the value of X is Y doesn't actually increase the actual value of anything, because that is decided by things the government does not control. Your point about carrots assumes, for some reason that you don't explain, that a firm chooses to sell for a price that is less than market-clearing (this happens all the time with people who make this argument: claims that businesses are both greedy and non-profit maximising). And this model is generally not true of labour either: minimum wage is minimum productivity, that is it, no need to talk about carrots.

Right, and you should be totally clear with people reading your comment: no economic theory supports what you are saying. Wages are productivity, the money to pay wages comes from customers, who choose to pay for something that the worker is producing. Minimum wages do not, and cannot, increase the share of productivity that is paid to workers anymore than the government can demand that shareholders accept lower returns. This is just total economic nonsense.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: