[21echoes]

this is a ridiculously warped view on minimum wage

1) The average age of a minimum age worker is 35, and 88% are not teenagers. So no, the example in your first line should not be "you're some teenager", it's "you're a parent working two jobs and still on food stamps". http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/10/upshot/minimum-wage.html

2) Talking about the cost of goods doubling is straight-up fear-mongering. Walmart set their minimum wage to $9, so raising it to $15 wouldn't even be doubling if minimum wage labor was literally their only cost of business. That's not even close to true, of course, but let's be generous and assume it's 1/3 of their sales minus CGS (~120B, so 40B). Their sales were ~500B last year, so with literally no other changes, they would only have to raise prices by 5% to go to $15 minimum wage.

[Domenic_S]

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Take this table for example, where your linked article got its information: http://www.cepr.net/blogs/cepr-blog/update-low-wage-worker-1...

Notice anything interesting about the age bands?

16 - 19 (4 years)

20 - 24 (4 years)

25 - 34 (10 years (!))

35 - 64 (30 years (!!!))

65+ (? years)

The 35 - 64 band is especially egregious because it includes both people at the peak of their careers and retirees (who often take throwaway jobs to stay busy or supplement early SS @ 62).

Ok, so everyone's got an agenda, no real news there. The money shot is here:

> “All of us used to think minimum wage meant a wage you could live on,” de Blasio said

Wat? Who used to think that? Roosevelt didn't think that when he introduced the FLSA, actually the major win there was the abolition of child labor in America. At some point the thought around minimum wage went from "the minimum amount you have to pay so you're not basically whipping child slaves all day" to "the wage we need to buy iPhones and 2 cars".

The actual question is, what level of lifestyle should minimum wage/basic income/whatever support? Is that level adjusted for local prices, or do you have to live in a "designated poor person area" to survive (ie, is the amount the same in SF as it is an Akron)? What about if someone blows all their BI on liquor or gambling and becomes homeless, do we give them more? Who is responsible?

I don't have the answers, and ultimately the discussion is pointless because no group of people will ever agree on this.

[21echoes]

... are you replying to the right comment? i didn't talk for a second about what de Blasio said, and those age bands don't do anything about the stat i cited: that 88% of minimum wage employees are 20 or older.

[Domenic_S]

I was responding to the "average age is 35" portion; the average is useless without more discreet bands because the post-retirement and going back to work post-empty-nest communities are so large. 88% being non-teens is a meaningless metric without more information -- I had a few minimum-wage jobs in college, and I was not a teenager then.

[fineman]

> The actual question is, what level of lifestyle should minimum wage/basic income/whatever support?

Enough to enable the barista, garbage collector, concierge, etc, to live in the same city they work in. It produces nicer cities. Like reserving and maintaining park-space, it's a cost you pay for for a nice place to live.

If some coffee shops want to automate, great. They'll be competing with vending machines, not the remaining human-staffed cafes.

[Domenic_S]

They can live in those cities already. They're not buying houses, but they can live there.

Again the question is what standard of living is the goal? Homeownership? Eating out? New electronics? That's the question that will never have a universal answer.