|
|
|
|
|
|
by _5ysi
2781 days ago
|
|
|
I read this comment and think instantly of a creation vs evolution debate. Neither side can disprove the other and things just get more heated as we talk past one another. There is a fundamental logic to thinking that the floor for wages should be 0. Otherwise one can generate a bunch of facts regarding different values and circumstance and controls. Neither set of arguments proves the other is wrong, they just reference different basic truths. With minimum wage is there are two competing claims, that interfering in the price of exchange is bad and that thumbing the price in favor of the worker vs business has good results. While both can be true, the moral claim can be completely true while the data based claim is at best true to an unknown point. Studies like this do nothing to convince me there should be a minimum wage, regardless of the claimed optimum point, because a more transparent mechanism to increase lower income worker pay would be a government redistribution that is proportional to all transactions, not acutely affecting specific transactions. I.e. Tax and spend or print and spend, don't price control. Just like creation and evolution, you can have it both ways but you need to iron it out consistently. |
|
|
Woh woh woh. Back the truck up. One side has a hypothesis that can be subjected to falsification. The other says "A wizard did it. Trust me."
The debate on minimum wage is an emperical question that both models fail and succeed on various tests. It's a truly hard question to answer and likely has no stable model.
Completely 110% different types of logical incongruity.