Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by WaxProlix 3279 days ago
Minimum wage isn't really Marxist afaik, and people go against 'laws' of economy because they aren't laws in the same sense that say, thermodynamics or gravity seem to be. We have trends that arise out of messy and massively complex systems, and people feel free to believe that whatever variables were at play in some other situation aren't in theirs.

Edit: This is aside from any opinion about how good or bad the content of the article is, just pointing out why I think people are increasingly okay with ignoring economists' opinions.
1 comments
0x27081990 3279 days ago
>Minimum wage isn't really Marxist afaik

That's correct, but current Marxists or people who claim to be left-wing always make it a top priority issue to increment the minimum wage.

link
vorotato 3278 days ago
I don't really understand why capitalists think they can continue to pay people the same amount in the context of increased efficiency. Profits are higher than ever but the public doesn't see a dime of it. Surely it will have negative impacts on consumption down the road.
link
0x27081990 3278 days ago
Higher profits aren't a bad thing. Higher profits mean higher taxes paid, higher profits also mean more money put into work (personal investments or by third parties, i.e. put in a bank and the bank makes their own investments or loans it). Higher profits means wealth is being generated. Contrary to popular belief, minimum wage does not distribute wealth, but rather excludes those who have less, therefore helps accumulating wealth.

Minimum wage jobs aren't meant to be a job for life. It's an entry level job. If you want higher paid jobs, you need to earn it. Minimum wage increase causes unemployment, you end helping a few at the expense of others who happen to need help the most.

link
oh_sigh 3278 days ago
Just a guess, but is it because increase inefficiencies has nothing to do with the actual workers skills?

For example, Someone owns a fence building company, and their crew can lay 1000' of fence a day by shoveling the fence post holes. The owner spends $100,000 and invests in a couple of big power augers, which lets his crew now lay 5000' of fence a day(also, the crew is less tired at the end of the day).

The crew is now 5x as productive as they were in the past, but it is because of the capital investment of the owner, not through any intrinsic increase in productivity from the crew itself.

Who gets to capture the increase in revenue?

link