[Semirhage]

People will ultimately work for their minimum survivable wage and economies will adjust to support ever decreasing wages among a subset of the population. People live in favelas in Rio. They live in tiny, one room flats in Hong Kong without plumbing in deplorable conditions. They live in 'work camps' in Dubai without any rights at all. And they work hard.

You just used examples of places for which a tiny one-room flat is an improvement over previous conditions. If you think a favela is bad, try being a peasant on a working farm.

The idea that people used to life in, for example, Texas or London will get used to a similar lifestyle which represents a massive downgrade is ridiculous. Historically people started overthrowing governments and sending people to guillotines for more modest losses. You’d have riots in SF if the options were “work for $1” or “starve.”

I think minimum wage laws are a good idea too, but your argument is bizarre.

[sonnyblarney]

"Historically people started overthrowing governments and sending people to guillotines for more modest losses. You’d have riots in SF if the options were “work for $1” or “starve.”"

YES. And what would those riots be for: MORE WAGES. Basically a minimum wage or collective bargaining. Hence my point of why minimum wage has to exist!

Using an externalized or non-market function like rioting to achieve wage increase, is the same as voting to require minimum wage etc:

--> You literally just made my argument for me <--

"Texas or London will get used to a similar lifestyle which represents a massive downgrade is ridiculous."

People have no choice but to accept the economic conditions they face.

This is 'reality' , it's not 'bizarre' at all.

My argument is nothing but basic, classical economics. It's not even an argument, more so an explanation. Nothing new.

If people have to work for 'next to nothing or die' - what do you think they will do?

Die? Or work like a slave? The later in most cases.

It's economic reality.

I think what would happen in London/SF/Texas is that irregular workers would probably move in and form the basis of this ever lowering economy, and empowered citizens would be much less likely to fall - but they definitely could. And that includes you, and me, if we didn't have access to family, social services, minimum wages etc..

[Semirhage]

People have no choice but to accept the economic conditions they face.

My whole point is that as I said, people don’t just accept, they riot and revolt. I agree with minimum wage laws, but not because of some hyper-extreme scenario in which San Franciscans are working and living like Brazilians in favelas. Frankly we shouldn’t need to resort to that kind of hyperbole to make the case for a living wage.

If you want to see what happens, even in traditionally poor places when people face a “fight or die impoverished” scenario, see Egypt, Tunisia, Libya. People were willing to face tanks and bombs with their bare hands because the alternative was to starve. I think you underestimate the potential belligerence of the average American if faced with a similar scenario.

The larger issue though is that riot, abject poverty, and revolt aren’t actually the foundation of a minimum wage. Fairness, and Econ 101 are, and there’s no need to get so far out there as to divert the debate away from present conditions to extreme hypotheticals.

[sonnyblarney]

Yes, of course people would revolt, I fully agree.

Of course American citizens would revolt and demand non-market interventions, like minimum wage etc..

Without non-market interventions, they would be serfs, is my point.