[s3r3nity]

The problem I have with this argument is that it sets up Amazon in a caricature that always makes them look evil and anti-labor:

1) Don't support lowering the minimum wage = Democrats + labor groups hate on you for not paying workers, even if you can hire more of them = anti-labor 2) Support the minimum wage nationally + across their international workforce = "This is an automation ploy + competitive advantage = anti-labor

There seems like no ideal approach for low-skilled labor here that won't seem anti-labor in the short-to-medium term

[krapp]

Amazon is anti-labor. Someone posted a leak of their union-suppression policies not long ago[0], and they're quite vocal about their anti-union stance being a part of their "ownership culture."

You're right that they're damned if they do, damned if they don't though, but let's not pretend they haven't earned that mistrust.

[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18077434

[T2_t2]

Bingo! This debate is almost entirely predicated on all sides claiming to know the unknowable, and predict the future outcomes of policy changes where not only is the evidence and data very mixed, but where we aren't really sure what outcome we want. This is terrifying to me, because we have smart people with zero skin in the game playing with the poorest, most vulnerable people's lives in an ideological shouting match.

On what outcome we want, I think people are confused about the actual affect minimum wage has. Some people will lose their jobs when minimum wages increase. That is just inevitable, and not something anyone really argues against. The most positive response is that job losses will be small, and/or those jobs are usually not very pleasant anyway.

If we assume someone on an unlivable wage can either have their wage increased to livable, stay the same - i.e. minimum goes up, hours go down, actual pay is ballpark the same - or lose their job and become unemployed, what population level outcome is acceptable?

In the most simplistic case, what split of people losing jobs and becoming unemployed is acceptable if everyone else gets a livable wage? 60 (made unemployed) vs 40 (employed)? 50-50? 40-60?

What if the the group that works for unlivable wages stays almost static, and it is 10% job loss, 70% no change, 20% increase? Is that the success or failure?

These examples ignore people outside this group, and it is possible that some people who currently make livable wages today could have their hours cut or accelerated automation catches them as well. Even with the most simplistic outcomes, I don't know what numbers society wants to optimise for. How can we judge if a policy works if we don't know what we want to achieve?

It also ignores the economic diversity of the USA. Prices will rise a LOT in some places if Seattle/SF minimum wages are applied to less economically strong states, and the results could be disastrous. AFAIK (data is a few years old) there are a few states with median wages less than $15 in the USA - see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/free-lunches-like-th... A blanket $15 is troublesome, while maybe ineffective (if it works) in some other states.

So it seems to me we have no clear objectives, no outcomes we are excited by, but what we do have are people for whom minimum wage laws are an article of faith. Any attempts to actually measure the affects of any of this will be fought vociferously by all sides, usually with competing BS studies. You just have to see what happened in Seattle, where a long term, detailed but ultimately negative study was countered with a hastily written pro-report for ideological reasons.

Terrifying certainty in an uncertain domain combined with unclear goals and a determined effort to not measure? Nah, nothing could possibligh go bad here...