reply on: Help me understand minimum wage logic better \ stacker news ~econ

pull down to refresh

90 sats \ 2 replies \ @SimpleStacker 4 Jan \ on: Help me understand minimum wage logic better econ

I imagine the government's underlying slug class will benefit as they just print more money anyway. As an example, we have gov-employed people working outside the municipality and basically all they do is sweep up, there's like 5 of them and all they do is sweep up and sit on their asses. Quite honestly, even 500 euros is too much to be paying 5 people for pretending to be busy all day, buy a sweeper robot using an EU subsidy or something, I don't know.

You are very astute to note this point. Indeed, the whole idea about the government "creating jobs" and "providing income" is a huge misunderstanding of economics.

For example, if the government paid 100 people to dig a hole and fill it up again, did that "create jobs"?

In economics, you must always ask, what could have been done with those resources instead? And thus, your comment about the sweeper robot is spot on.

And if someone says, "well those sweeper robots will put the people out of work!" You must say, "No it frees them up to do other, more useful, work!"

78 sats \ 1 reply \ @stack_harder OP 4 Jan

sounds like broken window theory a bit. i often wish I was dealing with a robot because honestly, it would be a much more smooth and efficient process.

the old people in the village are prone to lamenting how life was so great when the factories were still working etc , but those factories weren't even profitable, they were essentially taxpayer-subsidized jobs to keep people busy

Naturally they weren't happy when the inevitable axe fell

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 4 Jan

Michael Malice has joked that he's pro-minimum wages because he prefers dealing with machines to entry-level employees.