tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post123176009080797939..comments2024-03-29T00:15:52.716-07:00Comments on Idiosyncratic Whisk: The Minimum Wage, Sunk Costs, Returns, and CapitalKevin Erdmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07431566729667544886noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-68873471501466926082015-08-07T20:23:01.455-07:002015-08-07T20:23:01.455-07:00Yes. It definitely is important to think about de...Yes. It definitely is important to think about de facto MTR's, etc. It seems like some combination of work subsidies and guaranteed incomes work best.<br /><br />As far as $1/hour wages go though, it looks to me like the natural minimum wage in the US is somewhere around $6 or so. When the minimum wage was at $5, the BLS estimated very few workers at that level.Kevin Erdmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07431566729667544886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-13083817498287282382015-08-07T07:24:29.213-07:002015-08-07T07:24:29.213-07:00That's a good point, too often it's assume...That's a good point, too often it's assumed that the capital investment created by higher labor costs must raise living standards generally, but there's really no reason that should be true.<br /><br />The LFP map is interesting.<br /><br />The only solid arguments I've seen for MW hikes are dependent on the effects of other government actions, particularly the high MTRs created by welfare and the high costs associated with regulation -- i.e. you probably don't want to live nearby people making less than $1/hour, and indeed it may not even be possible for them to comply with regulation (e.g. housing/automotive/food-quality codes) at those incomes, and it may not make sense for them to work at those incomes given the MTRs and leisure opportunities created by welfare.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11877699517690934530noreply@blogger.com