From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Wed Apr 16 2003 - 12:22:42 MDT
owner-extropians@extropy.org wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Apr 2003 21:39:08 -0700, you wrote:
>
>> Reason writes
>>
>>> You're missing the very complex part of the model that shows how
>>> much revenue an entrepreneur can generate per employee. Personnel
>>> are the largest cost in almost all businesses. You are also missing
>>> the taxation cost of enforcing a minimum wage.
>>>
>>> That and workers never becoming entrepreneurs is silly. It's a
>>> dynamic equilibrium at best, and the number of entrepreneurs is all
>>> over the map with legislation, cost of money, industry you have in
>>> mind, etc, etc...
>>
>> Yes, but my goal is to find the minimum number of assumptions,
>> (and if possible to minimize their implausibility), that would
>> enable anyone to think that minimum wage is a good idea.
>>
>
>
> Assume that all those poor people will riot and kill all the yuppies.
> That should do the trick.
>
### Actually, it is easier for the rich to collectively kill the poor than
the other way around.
If welfare created a positive feedback between threatening others with
violence and financial reward, it would be indeed a very bad idea.
Workfare, provision of monies for performing marginally useful but
economically unsustainable services (many simple cleaning and service jobs),
seems to be a much better solution, in part because it limits the total
funds needed by discouraging the lazy.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 16 2003 - 09:29:02 MDT