So in your state run healthcare system, do the board of physicians decide for a terminally ill person only based on his needs, or do they have a budget they have to stay within? If they only take need into account, then that pretty much requires that a judge will get to order the state to divert funds if total needs are more than the state allocated. But if the doctors have a budget, well, a right that depends on how many other people are exercising it and how much money the legislature voted is a funny thing to call a "right". "Sorry, your sect isn't allowed to build a church because too many other sects have built too many churches and used up the state's church budget." Would you call that a "right" to free exercise of religion?
I lost you. If I get to take a degree in poetry because education is a fundamental right and I'm more than just a tool to serve the economic engine of a nation, then what difference does it make how many years are suitable for the needs of the nation? And, for that matter, why is a high school grad making $15/hour expected to pay college professors $30/hour because I individually desire a four-year poetry degree? Isn't he more than just a tool too?
Can a living wage be maintained by US employers? Unsure. We’d have to slow-walk into it to find out.
Not necessary -- simple inspection of a generic supply-and-demand chart is enough to answer that question. Yes, of course a "living wage" can be maintained by US employers. The marginal revenue from adding unskilled labor is subject to the law of diminishing returns, same as any other input into production. So a price increase in anything can be maintained -- the buyer simply moves to a different point on the supply-and-demand chart: to the point where the marginal revenue matches the price. Because of diminishing returns, when you use less unskilled labor the marginal revenue per unit of unskilled labor goes up. There's some a point on the chart where the employer is using so little unskilled labor that she's taking in $15 in increased sales per hour of unskilled labor she uses; that's what will determine how much unskilled labor she buys.
But that's not the question I asked. I'm asking you what becomes of the workers who don't know how to do anything in an hour that will increase anyone's sales by $15? When you impose a price floor on anything, you reduce the amount people buy. Why do you think it is that anyone is even talking about legally mandating a $15/hour minimum wage? American workers who make less than that can raise wages to that level any time they choose to, federal law or no -- they can simply all refuse to work for less than that. US employers would maintain that level because they wouldn't have a choice, same as if there's a law, because the workers would demand it. A minimum wage is functionally equivalent to a labor union of all the unskilled workers; and the workers don't need a federal law to unionize. So why don't they unionize? They don't because not everybody making under $15/hour would join. But who wouldn't join? Who doesn't want a raise? Everybody wants a raise. The workers who won't join the union and won't strike for $15/hour, even though they want $15/hour, are the workers
who expect to lose their jobs when the number of jobs drops below the number of workers who want jobs.
You say "End low wages and you end handouts." Why do you believe that's true? You'll end handouts to
the subset of low wage workers who keep their jobs; but you'll increase handouts to the subset of low wage workers who lose their jobs, and you'll increase handouts to the nonworkers who would have gotten $10/hour jobs if you hadn't outlawed them,
unless you have a way to guarantee a job to everyone, whether he can increase anyone's sales by $15 or not. Do you?
I’ve heard no negative feedback regarding mandatory fifteen dollar minimums so far so that’s encouraging.
Well, it probably indicates that you're in a bubble.
Perhaps I’m being naive in thinking starvation wages for those who struggle in a technologically advancing world is wrong.
Well, in the first place, $14/hour is not "starvation wages". People who use the phrase "living wage", in my experience, never, ever mean the amount of wages it takes to live on. That means they are spreading propaganda, not truth.
And in the second place, whether something is wrong depends on what the alternatives are. That means we're not ready to tackle wrong yet, because we haven't established what the alternatives are. You say "End low wages and you end handouts." That's a claim that you know of an alternative with high wages and no handouts. May we see it, please? How are you going to guarantee a job to everyone, whether an hour of his work can increase anyone's sales by $15 or not?
