That's true. I'll admit, I didn't even try to respond to the person I was replying to with regard to the level they should be at, because I couldn't even understand their position.
That said, I believe in a minimum wage. It probably should be higher. Or, what I would prefer, is instead of raising the minimum wage we raise taxes and provide more government services (e.g. free healthcare for all as opposed to raising the minimum wage.)
Regressive zoning makes the economy run well, for you and no one else.
Also minimum wages are kind of okay because all prices will adjust upwards relative to the lowest price of unspecialized labor.
The real problem is the ability to slow down economic activity below the speed at which most members of society can survive. Imagine starting a siege against a city and running their supplies down until they surrender.
Since money is a monopoly, is necessary for the division of labor and the division of labor is necessary to live a modern life then the ability to stop all money transactions is equivalent to a siege but it can be done to individuals or entire countries. Since those excluded individuals are by definition at the bottom of society they will at some point revolt if they reach a critical mass. So politicians are trying to keep these people busy. They do so by creating jobs and the money for the jobs has to be borrowed from those who have withheld their money. So from a naive perspective it looks like the government is really incompetent and filled with stupid politicians. The moment a "smart" politician stops the "nonsense" (via gold standard, austerity, deregulation) radicalized people will suddenly pop out of nowhere.
In either case the problem is the economic siege, not the response to the siege. Stopping the siege stops the problem.
However, we consider the ability to coduct economic sieges to be a holy cow, after all capitalism has strict private property at its core and private property is by definition the ability to conduct economic sieges. (excluding people from entering your private property).
e.g. If you own an uninterrupted ring of land around a city you own that city.
Withholding money from A to B also interrupts the flow from B to C and C to D. A lot of economic activity may or may not happen because of a single person. This is why debt is exploding endlessly because we recognized the benefit of ignoring the slow people. All we need to do is to make them hurry up.
> Regressive zoning makes the economy run well, for you and no one else.
Huh? Could you please explain what you are talking about?
> Also minimum wages are kind of okay because all prices will adjust upwards relative to the lowest price of unspecialized labor.
Do we have any empirical evidence for this? Would you we could look at price level data for different countries over time and compare that with data on minimum wage legislation? What would you expect to see?
Minimum wage legislation only concerns you, if you are running a business that offers jobs to poor people. If you automate and hire robots instead: no obligation. If you don't open a business in the first place: no obligation. If you outsource overseas: no obligation.
Do you see how the article I linked applies?
I would suggest that if we want to help poor people via legislation, we give them money financed out of general taxation. Instead of special obligations that effectively act as a tax on interactions with the needy.
> I firmly believe in a minimum wage.
What makes you believe so?
What do you think minimum wage legislation accomplishes? What are the costs and benefits you see?
What empirical evidence, if any, would change your mind?
That said, I believe in a minimum wage. It probably should be higher. Or, what I would prefer, is instead of raising the minimum wage we raise taxes and provide more government services (e.g. free healthcare for all as opposed to raising the minimum wage.)