Labor protections are in place to ensure workers can support themselves. To subvert those regulations pushes quality of life down for a populace.
Walmart is guilty of this to a lesser extent, as while they categorize their workers properly, they pay them so little that they have company-provided documentation on how to collect social benefits to supplement their income, which means we're subsidizing Walmart's labor costs directly.
This will be less of a problem as the minimum wage rises across the country, and companies are held accountable for proper worker classification.
What happens when increasing automation leads us to permanent structural unemployment?
How many years until Uber moves to self-driving cars and this entire article is meaningless?
The real minimum wage is $0: when you can't find a job.
I think arguing about the minimum wage is ''fighting the last war'' and not facing the real problems in the future that will force societies to evolve to survive.
> What happens when increasing automation leads us to permanent structural unemployment?
A social safety net funded by a tax on automation.
> I think arguing about the minimum wage is ''fighting the last war'' and not facing the real problems in the future that will force societies to evolve to survive.
We agree here. The real problem is, how will we equitably distribute productivity as automation continues to work itself up the stack? Allow the owners of automation and software to soak up the majority of income? Probably not. It'll either be basic income or guillotines.
Your first point is refuted by your second point...
According to you, Walmart employees cannot support themselves, even though we have a raft of labor protections. Walmart is not subverting any labor laws, as far as I can tell.
As to your point about minimum wage: how does increasing the cost of labor ensure that more people will have work? When you are unemployed, you cannot support yourself.
The bottom line is that when two parties enter into a contract voluntarily, that should be the end of the matter.
> The bottom line is that when two parties enter into a contract voluntarily, that should be the end of the matter.
That is a very black and white view; real life has a certain nuance that just isn't captured by blanket statements like this.
You'll miss things if you limit yourself to a single level of abstraction: while it makes sense to the two parties to look at it like that, there is also a larger-scale, societal interest that certain sorts of contracts not be allowed. Thus, society makes rules about contracts and employment. For example, we ban slavery, indentured servitude, and child labor because as a society, we've determined that those are exploitive (even if you can get children who would willingly work for you, or people who would sell themselves to you).
These sorts of laws are what make us a society. For an example of a what happens without them, take a look at Somalia.
> As to your point about minimum wage: how does increasing the cost of labor ensure that more people will have work? When you are unemployed, you cannot support yourself.
Increasing the cost of labor ensures labor can support itself. If a job doesn't exist, the social safety net steps in and ensures you can survive. That's how every other first world country works.
As a citizen, you have basic rights. As a corporation, you do not. A citizen is entitled to survival, a corporation is not entitled to cheap labor.
Unfortunately this means that power differentials between employer/employee will be highly exploitable.
Should people be allowed to sign contracts to enter into slavery? How about two criminals entering a voluntary contract to never betray each other. Would testifying against a criminal partner then be a compensatable contract breach?
Current US law says no. If two parties have unequal leverage (you need a job to survive, the company does not need you) there is an implicit structural coercion. That suggests it's not possible for two parties to actually "voluntarily" enter an agreement, as one is being coerced by bills/kids/health insurance, without an equal balance on the other side of the scale.
The bottom line is that one cannot completely enter into a voluntary contract with these entities, as there is an imbalance of power wider than the Grand Canyon.
Tell me, how many Uber drivers are able to negotiate with Uber on the cut Uber takes?
Wal-Mart just follows legal framework. We can certainly lobby our legal representatives to change that legal framework, but it's questionable whether raising the wage floor minimizes social benefits payout.
"Increases in the minimum wage are essentially a shift from corporate profits to low-wage employees," he says. "And we know that low-wage employees spend more of their money. They're going to spend essentially every penny they get, so that increased demand is going to result in more economic activity and potentially more jobs."
We could achieve the same benefit through a public safety net such as a guaranteed basic income. There is nothing inherently wrong with paying social benefits or redistributing income. Bringing employers into the mix through a minimum wage just distorts the market by preventing price discovery and making people whose labor is worth less than minimum wage effectively unemployable.
George Osborne the UK's Conservative Chancellor certainly does he has explicitly stated that the minimum wage needs to rise to reduce the in work benefits bill circa £12 billion.
Walmart is guilty of this to a lesser extent, as while they categorize their workers properly, they pay them so little that they have company-provided documentation on how to collect social benefits to supplement their income, which means we're subsidizing Walmart's labor costs directly.
This will be less of a problem as the minimum wage rises across the country, and companies are held accountable for proper worker classification.