[surement]

does raising the price of oranges mean you sell less of them? of course it does

employment is a two way agreement, why does the government need to set a price floor for labor? anyone who doesn't want to work for $4/h can just decide not to, but the law makes it illegal for anyone who would rather do that than be unemployed. Wages generally correlate with experience and these laws are robbing teenagers and young adults of valuable experience years.

[berniedurfee]

Raising the price of anything doesn’t mean you’ll sell fewer of them. In fact, that’s kind of the problem.

There’s a margin between the price you can sell a product for and the price you decide to sell a product for.

The same applies to wages. There’s a wage that you can offer and still have a healthy business, then there’s the wage you do offer because someone is willing to take the job.

Maximizing pricing and minimizing wages based on the limits you can get away with is the problem. Human decency should be a factor in setting prices and wages, not just strictly market economics and opportunity.

Insulin is too expensive and minimum wage is less than what’s needed to live reasonably well.

Those who control prices and wages can and should fix those problems. The government shouldn’t even have to intervene.

They do, but my point is, as a species, we should do better to improve conditions for others when we have the opportunity.

[surement]

> There’s a margin between the price you can sell a product for and the price you decide to sell a product for.

price elasticity is irrelevant. if someone is paid $10/h and earns their employer $11/h, and the city they live in raises minimum wage to $12/h, that person is now unemployed

> minimum wage is less than what’s needed to live reasonably well

this is irrelevant and an example of how "minimum wage" is an insidious term that hides the fact that there is still a (legal) minimum of $0: unemployment. Unemployment is not better than a low wage that can help you get valuable experience as a teenager or young adult. Once again, everyone in the world who is employed can make decisions about their own employment and how much they're willing to accept in return for their work, but magically we decide that some people would be better off without jobs because they're not providing above a certain threshold of value?

> They do, but my point is, as a species, we should do better to improve conditions for others when we have the opportunity.

Again, there is no economic system that can change the fact that we live in a world with limited resources that need rationing. And preventing people from gainful unemployment is improving their condition how exactly?

[berniedurfee]

How many businesses that pay minimum wage really can’t afford to pay more? By my estimation, it’s a fraction, if any.

We do live in a world with limited resources, but there are certainly enough for everyone if we collectively decided there should be.

[surement]

> How many businesses that pay minimum wage really can’t afford to pay more? By my estimation, it’s a fraction, if any.

Have you never used an automated car wash or self checkout?

People can decide their own minimum wage and to be unemployed if an employer isn't offering enough. This is literally what everyone does above the minimum wage.

> We do live in a world with limited resources, but there are certainly enough for everyone if we collectively decided there should be.

Every country that "decided" this ended up with famines killing millions. Meanwhile even imperfect capitalism keeps lifting the poverty floor, life expectancy, child survival rate, etc.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-population-livin...

[berniedurfee]

The failure of various alternative economic systems seem to have been universally caused by malice.

Either foreign powers trying to keep dominos from falling or internal forces leveraging control to create dictatorships.

I don’t think collective economics has a chance until we’re generally more evolved as a species.

Though, if we do enter an age of abundance, it will likely be the default as the illusion of scarce resources dissolves.

[surement]

The incentive structure of central planning doesn't work and it's not something that can be solved with people evolving to be more altruistic. Meanwhile even imperfect capitalism has raised the quality of life of billions of people.

> as the illusion of scarce resources dissolves

It's not an illusion. If you want gold, you need to mine it. If you mine gold, it means you're not raising chickens or writing a social networking app or cutting down trees or whatever. Everything has a trade-off, scarcity is never going away.