[dv_dt]

> But it's better than no job at all.

I think questioning this idea is the whole point of the article. It's a job, but does the job pay enough to improve the lot of the individual worker? Maybe that isn't fully obvious to the worker because they're worried about no job at all, but if the city of the business and residence of the workers isn't collectively benefiting, then maybe that's a hint that low-skill jobs don't pay enough. (Or are on a questionable edge).

Finally, if a business sets up with a portion of its employees earning subsistence wage, it's competition to other businesses which are more willing to pay better wages. These conditions are a potential drag on the progress of civilization if that's the case.

[whatshisface]

If they're more willing to pay better wages, why wouldn't the employees go and work there instead?

[dv_dt]

You can't work for a business which has been driven out of the market. And that is how markets can work for good, by selecting efficient businesses (but also bad - the market itself doesn't care), but if you look at businesses in the market, if they all race to subsistence wages then businesses willing to pay more can't operate and the city around the market declines. If the wages stay higher, the cost of goods are higher, but other opportunities rise, and the city as a whole can prosper. If the wages are way too high, then that can also be bad that can also cause a decline.

[amarkov]

Right, but this doesn't seem to describe what happened here. Before Amazon moved in, people in San Bernadino weren't working for efficient businesses paying great wages; they just didn't work.

How long should we have kept them unemployed to wait for a new high-paying business to show up?

[dv_dt]

If we systematically select businesses that pay subsistence wages, the concern is that better employment may never show up, and the overall economy becomes more and more unstable over time. But it's hard to know for sure and that is one of many different outcomes.

But still it's not an area you want to move forward with no introspection.

Edit: If low-workers are paid such a low margin that they have no personal buffer for uncertainties such as automation in warehouses, then we also guarantee that the government ends up paying for that transition (or we get unrest and/or economic malaise). If they're paid a higher margin, the economy ends up more efficient at flexibility transitioning from changes like warehouses becoming fully automated. (because offset workers can make individual transition choices that that make local sense instead of trying to apply slowly responding gov't policy).

[sp332]

Because they're too busy working their current jobs to spend time looking, applying, and interviewing for other jobs.

[s73ver_]

Not everyone can up and move like that.