In my view, there are some aspects that go beyond the traditional ideological boundaries in this debate. Regardless of what minimum wages do to unemployment, there's also the question of what they do to innovation.
If a business has a large supply of cheap labour, what is the incentive to use technology to reduce dumb work? There's undoubtedly less incentive and therefore I think a case could be made for high minimum wages in order to foster innovation.
At the end of the day, I believe that high tech societies have less unemployment, and apart from that reducing dumb work is what I consider progress for humanity.
On the other hand, high minimum wages are a disincentive for some people who do dumb work to learn something and become innovative themselves. So this is a counter argument to some degree. However, there are a lot of people who will never become educated or innovative or entrepreneural and pushing them into abject poverty violates my sense of human dignity.
Human dignity is the answer to your question of why not $50 minimum wage. It's subjective, I agree, but people living in a card board box violates my sense of human dignity as does watching people die from treatable diseases. Not being able to buy each new edition of the iPhone does not violate my sense of human dignity, nor does living in a run down neighbourhood.
One question that opponents of minimum wages never answer is what about the next generation? You can take the position that people who do nothing to help themselves deserve to live in poverty. But poverty is passed on to the next generation. Some admirable individuals are able to break that viscious cycle but most are not. It's very difficult to help the kids of poor people gain access to equal opportunities without to some degree helping their parents.
I'm afraid there's no way around spreading the wealth around a bit to people who may not deserve it if you want equal opportunities for the next generation.
That's true, but some people really have very little to offer to the market. Too little to support themselves economically. That's the sad truth. And unrelated to that, minimum wages are a tax on dumb work. I like that.
I guess we agree that one should make sure everyone has enough income to live. Something like basic income (or so) might do a better job than a minimum wage.
I often hear basic income heralded as a sweeping reform. Perhaps one should try to position basic income as relatively small step to contain bureaucracy: All means of state welfare (and we have a lot of them in e.g. Germany) will be combined into one; and as the state already knows how much money you make for tax purposes, it just re-uses that knowledge to determine your basic income allowance.
But isn't the problem exactly that only a sweeping reform - i.e. basic income replacing all the other benefit schemes - will actually lead to the kind of reduction in red tape that makes the system pay for itself?
Obviously, this is a rather intricate matter and very dependent on the particular welfare system you're talking about. I don't know anything about the german one.
But I think, politically, the big issue is the idea of handing over money to people without requiring them to look for work. That's a tough nut to crack, no matter how convincing your anti bureaucracy stance is. I doubt that it's going to happen.
If a business has a large supply of cheap labour, what is the incentive to use technology to reduce dumb work? There's undoubtedly less incentive and therefore I think a case could be made for high minimum wages in order to foster innovation.
At the end of the day, I believe that high tech societies have less unemployment, and apart from that reducing dumb work is what I consider progress for humanity.
On the other hand, high minimum wages are a disincentive for some people who do dumb work to learn something and become innovative themselves. So this is a counter argument to some degree. However, there are a lot of people who will never become educated or innovative or entrepreneural and pushing them into abject poverty violates my sense of human dignity.
Human dignity is the answer to your question of why not $50 minimum wage. It's subjective, I agree, but people living in a card board box violates my sense of human dignity as does watching people die from treatable diseases. Not being able to buy each new edition of the iPhone does not violate my sense of human dignity, nor does living in a run down neighbourhood.
One question that opponents of minimum wages never answer is what about the next generation? You can take the position that people who do nothing to help themselves deserve to live in poverty. But poverty is passed on to the next generation. Some admirable individuals are able to break that viscious cycle but most are not. It's very difficult to help the kids of poor people gain access to equal opportunities without to some degree helping their parents.
I'm afraid there's no way around spreading the wealth around a bit to people who may not deserve it if you want equal opportunities for the next generation.