[cam_l]

>Why is it the responsibility of private industry to support a “living wage?”

Because if they don't, they are externalising the true costs of labour to the government, or the community.

Which is fine, by the way, but they cannot then turn around and oppose the cost of taxation needed for gov programs which support people who aren't receiving that living wage. Nor, and worse still, oppose a living wage and then force work people to work such long hours that they cannot sustain a community that can provide the extra support needed to maintain a decent life.

[nearbuy]

> Because if they don't, they are externalising the true costs of labour to the government, or the community.

Does this mean anything or is it a circular definition?

If we decide we'd like people to have at least the standard of living of a single person earning $40/hour, does that make $40/hour the "true cost of labor"? Could we just as easily raise our standards and say $50/hour is the true cost?

The living wage is higher than what you would often have with no government intervention or safety net, so it's not a natural cost of labor in that sense.

[SR2Z]

No. Prices are not arbitrary; they're determined by market forces. I don't really agree with the idea that the minimum wage should be intended to support an adult (I think our welfare systems should be reformed to eliminate cliffs), but if you set it to the average price of a bunch of stuff in a region it's gonna be an actual number.

You can change the set of stuff, but it's much harder to cheat if you actually have to say what a living wage should be spent on.

[nearbuy]

I'm not doubting that we can choose a rate for the living wage.

I'm asking about the sentence I quoted. What makes the living wage the "true cost" of labor? Why consider it to be a cost that private industry should rightfully pay, and if they don't, they're "externalising" it to the government?

By the same logic, isn't nearly all government spending just externalized costs? When the government pays for roads or police, are these also externalized costs that private industry should pay for?

It sounds like a minarchist viewpoint, where government spending is kept to a minimum and services are privatized.

[raw_anon_1111]

So in Forsyth County GA where I use to live you think the minimum wage should be $30/hour? That’s what they said the livable wage is for a single person. If I have a child and I’m single should I automatically get a raise if $45 an hour?

[silverlake]

The true cost of labor is paid for by taxes. The bottom 50% in the US pay little to negative taxes due to government benefits. Most taxes are paid by the rich. Therefore, the true cost of labor is paid for by the rich, rather than by consumers in the form of higher prices.

[raw_anon_1111]

That always ignore the 8.5%% everyone pays in taxes for FICA that really just goes into the general fund - or the additional 8.1% in taxes that your employer pays in on your behalf. If you are an independent contractor - like even an uber driver is - you pay the entire 16.2%

[zozbot234]

The "true cost of labor" is set by the market. The cost to society of a person who can't find work because viable work opportunities have been destroyed by overregulation is unambiguously higher than that of the same person being gainfully employed, even for a "non-living" wage - because in the latter case it's easy for government to make up the difference in a way that's fair to everyone, whereas paying their full living costs is just that much harder.

[raw_anon_1111]

Please don’t say you actually believe the talking point that if it weren’t for regulation factory jobs would come back or do you believe on the high end that tech companies are laying people off because of regulation?

[SR2Z]

He's saying that a world where someone can't get hired for a $15 an hour job would be better if they could still work an $8 job instead of being unable to find work at all or being pushed into multiple part-time roles.