- Mar 25, 2001
- 19,275
- 1,361
- 126
Saw this on the NYT earlier today, their editorial board pushing Hillary to join onto $15 minimum wage.
I can't help but scratch my head at this. Econ 101 taught me that introducing a price floor on anything creates a surplus of that product, which in this case is labor (people).
Couple that with the fact that now business have a huge incentive to develop alternatives, and in this day and time the technology exists to do so. The true minimum wage is $0, and people are going to price themselves to that. There will be those that will benefit from this, but in the long run businesses will develop technologies that replace low skilled (even mid to high skilled) workers, it's inevitable.
I get that minimum wage is no way to go through life, and no you can't raise a family on it. What we should do imo is focus these people into some sort of skilled trade. Make community colleges affordable so they can learn something useful. Hell develop the skills in HS for those not college bound (and restrict college to those that should actually go to it). But putting a floor for how much you can pay someone for anything is only shooting themselves in the foot in the long run.
I'd be curious to see if anyone disagrees and their rationale if so?
I can't help but scratch my head at this. Econ 101 taught me that introducing a price floor on anything creates a surplus of that product, which in this case is labor (people).

Couple that with the fact that now business have a huge incentive to develop alternatives, and in this day and time the technology exists to do so. The true minimum wage is $0, and people are going to price themselves to that. There will be those that will benefit from this, but in the long run businesses will develop technologies that replace low skilled (even mid to high skilled) workers, it's inevitable.
I get that minimum wage is no way to go through life, and no you can't raise a family on it. What we should do imo is focus these people into some sort of skilled trade. Make community colleges affordable so they can learn something useful. Hell develop the skills in HS for those not college bound (and restrict college to those that should actually go to it). But putting a floor for how much you can pay someone for anything is only shooting themselves in the foot in the long run.
I'd be curious to see if anyone disagrees and their rationale if so?