[fennecfoxen]

This says more about the label than the opposition.

The "living wage" bakes in a variety of assumptions. First of all is the assumption that people shouldn't work if they're not out to earn a full-time living from that work. This view is typical of posh Americans who went to nice universities, had snazzy internships, and are now happily working full time.

It gleefully ignores those who need to start lower, and get entry level experience. Indeed, it is actively hostile to entire classes of people working.

A retiree who wants a little extra money. A high school kid from some gang-afflicted neighborhood, one who isn't going to college, but could benefit some low-key job in a restaurant, one that would keep him out of trouble, and get him a start for when he graduates. An ex-convict who's just spent five years in prison under one of Biden's drug laws, who could use a steady job to show his next employer he's hard working and didn't steal from work. An immigrant with marginal English language skills. That one girl I knew in school whose entire family was afflicted by a serious case of lead poisoning.

Now there's sure to be some sort of whining to the effect that some of these people need to be supported directly, but suppose they are -- why would that deny them the right to work?

Of course the cynical part of the political apparatus has absolutely no use for these people, since they don't vote, they don't campaign, they compete with the labor unions, and they're not always interested in sitting around and doing nothing on the government dime. They're useless in the revolution.

Oh, and of course the other thing! is that it helps draw attention away from the other big problem: a broken housing policy that has produced sky-high rents in so many major cities. Why fix that problem when you can make a new set of problems instead? One is hard work, and the other earns you praise as compassionate.

[gentaro]

The point that you're ignoring is that most people working these "entry-level" jobs in fact DO depend on them to cover their living expenses.

What you're suggesting is to set those people in a race to the bottom along with the high school kid and retiree looking for "a little extra money". The point of setting a living wage is to set a bare minimum standard for employment.

You'd also find that the same politicians pushing a for a minimum wage are the ones trying to address broken housing policies, but you'd have to do research instead of just complaining.

[fennecfoxen]

No, that point that you're ignoring in pointing that out is that if they don't depend on these jobs then they're entirely unemployed. Chopping off the bottom of the labor market benefits a few people, yes, it just throws others who are less valuable to your political party into the abyss.

> You'd also find that the same politicians pushing a for a minimum wage are the ones trying to address broken housing policies.

Maybe, but not in New York and not in San Francisco. It's all "restrict the supply of housing" as if the laws of supply and demand are made up — indeed, they will deny supply and demand the same way a Koch-funded lobbyist tells you we should save the planet by burning more coal.

[gentaro]

> No, that point that you're ignoring in pointing that out is that if they don't depend on these jobs then they're entirely unemployed.

Those jobs don't disappear just because you mandate a living wage.

[fennecfoxen]

No, all jobs don't disappear. Some, however, do. Some are no longer profitable, more are replaced by capital investments. Economics denialism is quite strong in your circles, as I noted.

It's even more of a pity because we should be investing capital in meaningful things, like biotech or space exploration or environmental progress or what-have-you, instead of on stupid things like robots and restaurant apps.

[gentaro]

> No, all jobs don't disappear. Some, however, do. Some are no longer profitable, more are replaced by capital investments. Economics denialism is quite strong in your circles, as I noted.

Ok, now we're getting to the root of the problem. This is argument is based off of your misunderstanding of economics. What you're missing here is this:

- Jobs are a function of demand.

- Demand is driven by consumers.

- Consumers need capital to drive demand

- The poor spend proportionately to their income much more than the wealthy.

That's the circle you need to be thinking about when you're asking yourself what the impact will be on jobs. The more you drive down living standards of the poor and middle class, the fewer jobs you will have, not the other way around.

[fennecfoxen]

> This is argument is based off of your misunderstanding of economics

Your superior "understanding" of economics is at odds with academic consensus and with reality.

> Consumers need capital to drive demand

Replacing five McDonalds cashiers with two cashiers, an app, and a touchscreen ordering kiosk doesn't "drive demand".