| > you have yet to name a single occupation Because it isn't in any way specific to an occupation. It's anything where the employee receives a non-monetary benefit from working somewhere that offsets a reduction in monetary compensation. It doesn't matter if what they're teaching you is to be a lawyer or an electrician or an auto worker, what happens is that you receive long-term training in exchange for less pay. > My argument is exactly that you need a minimum wage in a sellers market because the market is exceedingly inefficient for workers and allows companies to exploit workers and pass that profit off to already wealthy shareholders and upper management. This is not a description of a seller's market. When labor becomes more scarce or more in demand, the price goes up without need for any special rules. > If it is between a job that pays enough to survive vs one that does not? The point is that minimum wage is a garbage metric for this. Suppose one job requires you to incur $4000/year more in transportation expenses for commuting and then pays $15,000/year instead of $12,000/year. The lower paying job leaves you with $1000 more in your pocket after expenses, but it's prohibited. If either of those jobs doesn't pay enough to live it's the one with the higher nominal pay. > I fully agree that would be a better policy. It has proved much harder to pass through the political system. I don't think they've had an easy time raising the minimum wage either (for much more legitimate reasons) and would do better to give up on the worse policy so they can concentrate on the better one. |
So provide an example of what such a role would be...