✉ Minimum Wage | Good or Bad Idea?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 бер 2017
- Minimum wage - good or bad idea? What are the consequences of the minimum wage? Learn Austrian Economics in a fun way!
LINKS
BLOG: econclips.com/minimum-wage/
ANIMATIONS: toin.pl/en/
SUPPORT our project:
Patreon: / econclips
PayPal: bit.ly/2fgJR9e
Visit our website: econclips.com/
Like our Facebook page: bit.ly/1XoU4QV
Subscribe to our UA-cam channel: bit.ly/1PrEhxG
★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
Music on CC license:
Kevin MacLeod: Home Base Groove - na licencji Creative Commons Attribution (creativecommons.org/licenses/...)
Źródło: incompetech.com/music/royalty-...
Wykonawca: incompetech.com/
★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
Econ Clips is an economic blog. Our objetive is teaching economics through easy to watch animated films. We talk about variety of subjects such as economy, finance, money, investing, monetary systems, financial markets, financial institutions, cental banks and so on. With us You can learn how to acquire wealth and make good financial decisions. How to be better at managing your personal finance. How to avoid a Ponzi Scheme and other financial frauds or fall into a credit trap. If You want to know how the economy really works, how to understand and protect yourself from inflation or economic collapse - join us on econclips.com. Learn Austrian Economics in a fun way!
I'm told from the news that worker productivity has increased but wages are stagnant. Why is this?
Those are not the only two factors in the equation. You'd need to look at labour prices, taxes, raw materials prices, all that. If the productivity increases, but taxes take away all the resulting theoretical profit, there is no margin for increasing wages. By the same token, if productivity increases as a result of an investment in the workplace or something equivalent to that, there is no margin left for increasing wages. There is also the possibility that more people were employed in order to achieve higher productivity; if so, more people = more salaries to pay = same wages for everyone.
If the only reason for wages being stagnant is that the employer is being a scrooge, then his workforce should make him suffer by either using legal means to make him suffer, or better yet, moving to a similar company which may offer them better conditions for the same job.
+TreeFiddy
Since 1973, there has been a relatively large divergence between worker productivity and compensation. However, this cannot be all attributed to why would businesses "pay more if they can get away with paying less." Otherwise, why would these businesses have waited until 1973?
After all, there were far more lenient times toward businesses before that. The real reason is a multitude of factors such as increased training, globalization (American workers face more competition from workers overseas), and increased incentives (maternity leave, paternity leave, etc). However, the main reason that stands out is often the increased use of machinery and technology (automation).
Nevertheless, there is one thing consistent between all these factors: if businesses simply paid all of their revenue toward higher worker wages like you silently suggest then they would never have been able to afford these. In short, businesses have to invest in the future, not the short term; which means that a generation of American workers have to be sacrificed in terms of wages so that all Americans -- including future Americans -- can prosper.
Productivity can increase earnings or reduce the price or product.
@Robust Crypto I don't know about the USA but here in the UK about 6% of spending on R&D comes from the government, 2% from non-profits, 23% from higher education institutions, and 68% from business. My source is the Office for National States:
www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/researchanddevelopmentexpenditure/datasets/ukgrossdomesticexpenditureonresearchanddevelopment
If it's so easy, why does the government not understand it?
First, the majority of people need to understand it. The politicians are an image of the people. They won't do a political change that the public perceive as bad. That would cause vote losses.
The key thing is why people don't understand it.
I think most people do not understand it because it's easier to think in straightforward solution. Raise minimum wage = help the poor. When in the reality we need a 6 minutes video just to scratch the surface of the problem.
Because Keynsian economics is beneficial for the states propagation. Terrible for economics and the people but politically convinient.
It's because the left push for it, the left it's ideologically driven, instead of facts and reason
The government is simply a utility of the public. The public is demanding these higher wages.
I promise you and for all americans a 10 000$ stimulus check per year and retirement at 60 years old without increasing taxes and even increasing tax revenue as a result of economic growth and lower unemployment. Do you see why it is easier to promise Keynesian policies than free market policies in order to get elected ?
A system that functions without regard to the consequences of human life cannot exist in a state that relies on those very same people for its leadership. Regardless of how sound an idea is in theory, it's fundamentally incompatible with democracy if people are allowed to vote in their own interests against its existence. As long as the situation exists where companies are incentivized to reduce labour costs and this results in difficulties for people who are trying to feed their families you will end up with a state that has either strong Union or wage laws in a democracy. If you don't like it, perhaps you should spend your time advocating for a one party authoritarian regime that is dedicated to capital more than people.
Well said
democracy is stupid, because if the majority votes to tax bill gates income 99% or steal his money directly they will gladly do it (because it benefits them), a constitution which can't be violated even by democracy is better or a straight up monarchy
@@ulfricstormcloak8003 monarchies could not exist in their previous forms in modern times, they relied on the rite of kings as a mechanism to legitimize power which couldnt function with the enlightenment values that have lead to our prosperity. Constitutions are often amended, you couldnt create one which didnt eventually receive radical changes in a free society. What you really want is a fascist regime which would be able to use any means necessary to subjugate the masses of people who revolted against your ideas.
Sticking dissidants into concentration camp and harvesting their organs for capitalists would be the best method of ensuring the system maintains itself for the group of people you want to advantage, and you'd seriously want to consider systematically raping their women(barring the media from reporting on it) because you'd need to maintain stable growth in your population as the working class collectively decide children are a burden to the consumption rates you demand of them.
Or, alternatively, you could just give people as much freedom as possible and let them fuck it all up because none of it matters anyways. No one claims that democracy is great, it's just better than all the other systems that have been tried.
@@D4PPZ456 yes and that's exactly why i hate democracy a good dictatorship could work significantly better than a democracy but the majority is not gonna accept that and it's almost impossible to establish a dictatorship which doesn't go corrupt , which makes democracy a necessary evil.
i'm gonna ignore the concentration camps and organs strawman bullshit
" you'd need to maintain stable growth in your population as the working class collectively decide children are a burden to the consumption rates you demand of them"
good, the people are making good choices i see nothing wrong with low skilled workers considering children a burden, because that's true, you shouldn't give birth to children if you can't afford feeding and educating them if people did that we'd have a low population of low skilled workers and the prices of labor would go up again which means the others will be able to survive and have children.
"system that functions without regard to the consequences of human life" You mean Capitalism has no regards to human life? Check out our life expectancy before and after capitalism.
"where companies are incentivized to reduce labor costs" You mean minimum wage?
"results in difficulties for people who are trying to feed their families" Low wages does not mean difficulties in feeding their families. Removing minimum wage increases your purchasing power.
"you will end up with a state that has either strong Union or wage laws in a democracy" Strong union is ok, wage laws is not. Forcing people not to pay workers a certain wage (minimum wage) is NOT a democracy.
"authoritarian regime that is dedicated to capital more than people" People are the capital. Minimum wage prevents that capital (the people) from being used, leading to unemployment.
i want to ask what are the pros and cons of government intervention in the market for necessity goods like egg, fish and chicken. Consider the effects to both consumers and producers.
Good vid
+Top Shelf Sounds Thanks! :)
It affects the workers making above minimum wage as well. If you are a high skill worker making $11/hour when your low skill co-workers are making a minimum wage of $6, you'll feel unfair and want a raise too when minimum wage is raised to $10.
I 50% agree with this and 50% don’t. If there wasn’t things like minimum wage certain groups would get what is considered minimum wage and others would get a lot less for doing the same job. I do agree that “minimum wage jobs” should be set aside for college aged (21) people and under. We need to get people young adults and older to have skills that would pay them more. Many times they don’t have the opportunities to do that because of other reasons
NIce :)
:)
I think it's best to let the free market reflect reality. Starbucks or another major chain in a city can deal with a high minimum wage even if they have to fire some people but a little cafe in a rural area may only be able to pay an employee $5 an hour or go out of business.
No one is gonna work for 5 dollars an hour. Thats not even enough to pay for the cheapest rent there is in america at $634 a month.
@@AnarchoBearBear it's just an example, the principle is still the same.
@Jonathan Williams my guy NO ONE is going to work for five dollars an hour. Not in america where everything is so expensive that 5 dollars wont do shit for you, its nit even gonna get you that "cheap" rural housing.
Yeah. Well when you don't have a minimum wage you end up like China. Almost everybody there gets paid like the equivalent to $2 u.s an hour
If the business would go out of business without paying someone an unfair wage, then that business was not a legitimately viable business in the first place. That is a failure in due diligence by the business owner, not unreasonable expectations by a labour force.
Minimum wage is another form of bad intervence. It only raises the unemployment. If someone think he's earning too little money, he should change a job. Why an employer should pay anyone more money than he can?
All sounds good in theory!! But in reality it's much different. Tell me what a solo mum who doesn't have many skills and has to work in fast food can do to support herself and her kid on tiny wages. That is the reality. These min wage jobs are not just for young people starting out. The reality is that many people do these jobs while trying to support a family. Trade unions are absolutely essential to keep a balance between business and workers.
The problem with minimum wage is that it actually hurts low skilled workers by incentivizing employers to hire higher skilled workers over them because of the limited job availability it creates. Minimum wage laws legislate a standard of ethics employers have to abide by rather than allowing the free market deduce what is a good wage through competition which would open the door to a wider range of wages across different businesses since there is no limiting principle of ethical pay. In other words, instead of employers having to just pay a minimum wage, employers would have to compete against each other in a market where no standard wage exist leaving more opportunities for workers.
Nationalist zealot already made a great counterpoint, but yeah, basically minimum wage ensures those single mothers don't get the job in the first place. With a less bloated and controlled economy things become cheaper as with less taxes and regulations, it's more feasible to market to the lower class when it comes to goods and services.
So much BS in here where to start. OK let's start with minimum wage. In places like Denmark, minimum wages are much higher in places like a McDonald's, yet the prices are about the same. Which shows that just because the minimum wage is higher does not mean that prices will be higher. Nor is there higher unemployment among less skilled workers compared to the US, so that is thrown out too. Additionally, it isn't high school, or college kids working during the morning/early afternoon hours at a fast food restaurant, it is older people, not ones just starting out.
Thanks for affirming our point, as there is no mandated minimum wage in Denmark. Sounds like utopia huh?
As an economist with post-grad studies I feel authorized to say that all of this is bullshit. Kind regards,
Would you mind using your knowledge to debunk the arguments of this presentation instead of just dismissing it as bullshit because you acquired a degree of some sort?
@@rutessian the question here is who should you to trust. A youtube clip? Or some random stranger that at least tells you he is somewhat entitled to disregard this clip? I guess such stranger could spend hours pointing that the labour market does not works as a perfect competition one, and that is far from even working as any other regular market, thus the common sense applied to theoretical perfect competition market does not apply here. Maybe such stranger can recommend many papers on the subject, or just invoke common sense, like recalling how the status of poverty eliminates all negotiating power from a person and therefore exposes it to a situation of vulnerability. Or that there is asymmetrical and imperfect competition in this market. For instance, the impossibility to quantify the "productivity" of a person and subjecting its wage to it.
@@jra116 Your arrogance is unjustified by the quality of your arguments. I don't know if you ever went to a job interview, but nobody asks you about your poverty level; potential employers are interested in what you can do and how smart you are. A job that almost anyone can do will pay a small wage. The higher the skill level and ability it requires, the higher the pay.
Me and a lot of my peers started with minimum wage and would have worked for less just to get some on the job experience. After a few years we started looking for better opportunities and, guess what! They were much easier to find.
On the other side there are companies which require highly skilled workers for some positions and those that don't offer a high enough salary don't attract quality applicants.
@@rutessian it is so nice to read how you benefited from a policy you are now disregarding.
So dear Tessian, allow me to introduce you the concept of "market imperfection". A source of market imperfection in the labour market is income inequality, which means that when two people are being interviewed for a job, the one with less endowment is in no position to compete, meaning that said person will bid for a lower wage in exchange for the job. It is OBVIOUS that employers won't necessarily check a person economic background, it is rather the lowest endowment job candidate who will accept a lower wage. And this is even worse and more noticeable when you combine inequality with its ugliest cousin: poverty (along with its counterpart, racism, more on that later).
This may sound unfamiliar to you, since you stated how you could afford a lower salary when younger. Good for you! But this is relatable to me since I'm writing from a third world country where companies take people's poverty in their advantage. In such an scenario, a minimum wage functions like a second best alternative (since the first one, achieving market perfection, is unfeasible) that protects poor workers and lays a set from which to start discussing wages.
Finally, let me tell you how wrong your impression is of how hiring works. No one, literally NO ONE, can measure ex ante the productivity of a job applicant, so when you choose that person you do it under complete uncertainty (assymetrical information, which is again another source of market imperfection). Since hiring is actually an act of faith, it generates many things. Like a signaling madness, which explains why people fill their CV with all sorts of degrees and references. Another one is discrimination, since historically the colour of your skin somehows determines how likely you are of being poor or waking racist impressions on others (that happens a lot in my country). This has its counterpart in network hiring, which is when a company only hires people from a certain social circle and explains why some US CEOs are not so apt for their position (they have not gone through any hard selection process and have rather benefited from their social circle).
I hope you could have read this so far. All of this explanation is only to stress my original claim: that labour market IS FULL OF IMPERFECTIONS so it is STUPID to treat it as a THEORETICAL PERFECT MARKET so as to DENY how beneficial a minimum wage policy could be. This explanation is backed by a lot of genuine economic scientific evidence, so sustaining what this youtube video says is really ideological trash.
Finally, feel free to read what ILO has to say:
www.ilo.org/global/topics/wages/minimum-wages/setting-adjusting/lang--en/index.htm
And what Dustmann et al (2019) found about the introduction of minimum wages in Germany
www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=sarkoups.free.fr/dustmann719.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj5zvPoxcTpAhVDJrkGHXzbBLAQFjABegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw1RHTUZDGJ67qFa8J50VKbW&cshid=1590050686477
I think a lot of people who make these videos never worked a minimum wage job for a long period of time. The meta for wages has change since the minimum wage law was created and the employers have more knowledge on economic then the employee so even in a fair economy as long as the worker don't know the value of their work it's impossible for them to get a fair wage without government intervention.
Workers don't know the value of their work? How do you said so? Is there a doctor living in a minimum wage?
@@AnimMouse in the case of a doctor the demand for doctors are high and the barrier to being is high. Doctors getting a high salaries is something new within the last 100 years. If the salary was not high most people would not become doctors because the barrier was too high so in their case they have to at least have an idea of what they could make given the risk to become a doctor.
@@demarcjohnson We need to look at the root cause. The reason why barriers is high. Government licensing and regulations.
Abolish minimum wage
Why can't they hire someone to narrate who knows how to pronounce English words correctly?
We do now
this aint good bruh
1:29 Argentina...
If this is supposed to be a highly successful or even successful policy why is Americans is this present situation why do workers need to be given application forms to go beg federal government for assistance?
this channel is wayyyy too much anti-government, you did bring up some good points like products and services being more expensive because of it, but you missed more important ones like being unable to scale a small business to have employees because of high costs and instead focused on stuff that are not really that related to the minimum wage. For example, job requirements getting higher and higher, this is mostly fault of too many people going to university thus making degrees worth less because there are just so many people with them and as such employers simply expect them even for the lowest position.
It's that universities are so universal that they can't afford to do things cheaply. If I go to uni for engineering, a worthwhile degree, my tuition also pays the salaries of countless humanities professors who output useless degrees. This is why trade schools are so cheap: they are specialized.
The price mechanic would take care of the education crisis, because it is caused by government involvement. Subsidies, legal requirements to do jobs and cheap credit by fed.
ZaTrox
Nowadays, a degree is seen as optional or even in the worst cases, a detriment. Nobody wants to hire a 21y/o who needs 20$/h just to pay off his/her loans who’s never had a job, over a 21y/o who’s had working experience for 3 years, needs only 15$/h and is competent working.
I’d rather hire the latter myself, even if the pay was the same; the behavior of college graduates these days is... agitating to say the least.
@@JohnSmith-ox3gy government involvement is responsible for sustaining 95% of the education base. Universities generate plenty money from athletics teams and tuition. It's wasteful administrative costs that need to be cut.
It's not anti-government, its anti-government involvement on capitalism.
Minimum wage isn't just a safety net against food and shelter, it's a safety net against inefficient companies. If you as a boss can't afford to pay your employees, you're a crappy businessman and deserve to go out of business to make way for more competent entrepreneurs.
I never thought that way
BS. Are you implying that the existence of low paying jobs prevents "competent" entrepeneurs from entering the market to compete for labor? Why not let the market take them out of business instead of the government?. Fact is that, employees would leave for a better paying job if they can get one, they stay with the "incompetent" business because that's the best job they can have. By setting a minimum wage, you're denying these people the opportunity to work.
You mean make way for more oligarchy? No wonder why McDonalds want to increase minimum wage, to stop competition.
Low wages arent good because people are willing to work for so little. The bigger issue is that a majority of jobs are minimum wage.
Remove minimum wage, then no minimum wage jobs. Every job will have high purchasing power.
@@AnimMouse that doesn’t make sense, it incentivizes owners to lower wages, especially the ones that pay at minimum wage.
@@Youre_dumb And the employees will leave as there is another employer has higher wages.
@@AnimMouse I don’t think you’re listening. There is no incentive for businesses to raise wages if they don’t have to
@@Youre_dumb There is no incentive for businesses to raise wages if they don’t have to. Also, there is no incentive for businesses to lower wages if they don’t have to. If you want to have higher wages, you should provide your manager an incentive to raise your wages.
Rise the Minimum Wage n Texas I've been poor my whole life
Nite Driv3r
Yes, let us make the minimum wage 1 000 000 a second.
you're poor because no one needs what you offer, learn something useful from the internet like coding,editing or any other high income skill
@@ulfricstormcloak8003 Nah Nxixgxgxexrx I offer the most important thing in da world Music!
Nite Driv3r so why are you broke then?
@@Moth1337 Because America doesn't give a shit about poverty or appreciate real talent
This is stupid. Most minimum wage people are unqualified workers doing physical jobs. And the minimum wage needs to sustainer them in their life,, the minimum wage is set so they can actually pay the bills and get some food.
Nope, the minimum wage makes it illegal to hire them. Or makes it more profitable to replace them with the machine.
1) Not 1 single example of what you describe exists.
2) If you cant pay people their wages than you have no burnish being a company.
3) If you don't pay people enough to live of of that, it will be more profitable for them not to work at all.
4) If you do not adjust minimum wage for inflation, people will not be able to buy basic goods.
5) If people are not payed enough to buy basic necessities, they Will riot.
Please, tell us about how the law of supply and demand cease to work when it comes to wages (price for work). There's a Noble Prize waiting. Raising the minimum wage isn't the only factor that influences employment level, but it's obvious that it is the factor that lowers employment. The employment level is lower, then it would be, if the minimum wage was not in place, and there ARE examples for that:
"Every bit of information we could analyse suggested that the Hungarian government’s decision to increase the minimum wage by 57 % in 2001 implied a loss of employment opportunities. Despite the brutal price shock the immediate effect did not seem dramatic, however. Similarly to Rama (2000) and Alatas and Cameron (2003) analysing Indonesia - the country providing the closest analogue to Hungary’s minimum wage experiment - we found no significant link between exposure to the minimum wage hike and subsequent employment change with large firms. In the same time the small firm sector lost about 3 % of its jobs in less than a year, and the job retention and job finding probabilities of low-wage workers deteriorated. The depressed regions were more severely affected despite their conditions that favour a positive employment effect. "
Source: ftp.iza.org/dp970.pdf
2,3,4 and 5) now is your term to show an example of wages (full time) that can't buy basic necessities.
You can't raise wages by a decree. The higher wages comes from higher productivity, not the other way around.
Should anti-dumping laws also be made redundant?
5) In Serbia it is common for workers to be forced to work at 1/ the minimum wage for full time employment. Due to the owe supply in low qualified work both employers and employees make a deal to break the law, that means the employee receives cca. 100€/month. Now keep in mind prices for most basic goods are pretty comparable to the prices in the region (despite bread, oil and flour). Can you afford rent + food + transport + utilities? www.zup.co.rs/materijali/Tabela%206L.pdf www.vice.com/rs/article/kako-ziveti-sa-sjebanim-prihodima
Now tell me, is working for such a price profitable for the employee? No, it is not, they are merely "reducing losses" Is it moral for us to allowe people to be taken advantage as that?
You can indeed raise wages by a decree. For example, one of "the old was" of keeping wages balanced was by a decreed ratio between the highest earning and the lowest earning /hour in a given institution or company.
Minimum wage also MUST at the weary least be coordinated with the rise in inflation. Which is common practice. And if not done regularly, WILL cause a country to grind to a halt due to strikes, protests and riots.
Moraly speaking minimum wage should also be raised in accordance with economic growth.
Increasing the minimum wage by such a large amount as Hungary did is plane stupid. Ofcorse such an increase was a shock to the market. An increase for example from 789,15€/month to 790,73€/month in Slovenia caused no such effects. www.mddsz.gov.si/si/delovna_podrocja/delovna_razmerja_in_pravice_iz_dela/socialno_partnerstvo/minimalna_placa/ And we also see a decrese in the number of jobless people in this time period: pxweb.stat.si/pxweb/Dialog/varval.asp?ma=0762003S&ti=&path=../Database/Dem_soc/07_trg_dela/02_07008_akt_preb_po_anketi/01_07620_akt_preb_ADS_cetrt/&lang=2, we also saw the increase in small buisnis registrations: www.stat.si/statweb
"Should anti-dumping laws also be made redundant?" - check out our "Monopoly in a free market" video
About Serbia. Oh look, people must break the law to employ people. If they couldn't do that, than these workers would earn 0 EUR, because they wouldn't be employed. Better?
About sources - I dont speak serbian, sorry. I don't know how much you can buy for 100 EUR in Serbia. But low wages in Serbia is a problem not because there is no minimum wage (as you've noticed, there IS a minimum wage in serbia, and people break the law and pay less anyway). It would take deeper analysis to find out why the wages are low, but I would say, looking on the HFI, that Serbia has a pretty big "lack-of-economic-freedom" problem:
object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/human-freedom-index-files/hfi_2016_country.pdf
Then you proceed to the moral argument (which is wrong btw) instead of economic. It's immoral to take someone elses money without consent, and give it to other people. It's immoral to interfere with the freedom of contract. The contracted price is moral if the two parties voluntary agree to that price. That's all i'm gonna say about that.
"Minimum wage also MUST at the weary least be coordinated with the rise in inflation."
check out our "Inflation and Deflation" video. I agree, that inflation is harmful to people with fixed income. But the answer is not "raise the minimum wage" but rather "stop inflating"
Slovenia example - increase by 0,19% is so small, that the efects would also be very small. Also, as I said before, there is a lot of factors that influences employment. You can have a situation, when you raise a minimum wage and the employment will rise. This is because there could be 100 different factors that is good for the job market. Have you checked them all?
That is exactly why you shouldn't use statistics INSTEAD of theory of economics, but WITH the theory of economics. The theory tell us, that the minimum wage, like any other price fixing, has it's consequences, such as problems for low skilled workers to get a job (at least legal job) or loosing job by low skilled workers. This consequences can be balanced by other factors, but that does not make the minimum wage better idea.
The person who made this video lives in a utopian theoretical world, where no humans live, only theories do.
If someone is working the whole day and not earning enough to run his/her life, then what do you suggest should be done? Should they be killed to stave off the excess population?
Do you even know how taxes work? Who pays for the infrastructure which you use daily to generate your "oh so precious" profits?
A company is an idea given life by people working there, so any company that can't hire their employees giving them a livable salary should go out of business.
The purpose for building societies and governments and nations is to ensure a fair competition , but more importantly so that the people can share each other's burdens through co-operation and ensure everyone can live.
Your "free market" theory is a mathematical model that has no parameters representing any of that, making it a theoretical BS that should never be applied in practice without restrictions. The restrictions are there to make up for the inefficiencies of the theory, so if your model doesn't converge under that condition, you need a better model bro.
"utopian theoretical world, where no humans live, only theories do" Supply and demand a utopian theory?
"If someone is working the whole day and not earning enough to run his/her life, then what do you suggest should be done?" By removing minimum wage, you are actually increasing the purchasing power of those low wage earners.
"Do you even know how taxes work?" Yea, taxes is when you buy for someone while using the money of someone.
"Who pays for the infrastructure which you use daily to generate your "oh so precious" profits?" No wonder why roads created by the government is so slow to build and not well maintained. Toll roads have better quality.
"any company that can't hire their employees giving them a livable salary should go out of business" No company will pay skilled workers under living wage as workers will leave. But, unskilled workers should be hired below living wage, unskilled jobs are not for living wage, but for having skills and experience.
@@AnimMouse (Almost) no one is born skilled. While they are "picking up" their skills, should society not take care that they do not die before getting their "skill"?
"unskilled workers should be hired below living wage" - we are talking about "living" wage, "living", as in "life" ...
@@TapajitDey "While they are "picking up" their skills, should society not take care that they do not die before getting their "skill"?" That is the responsibility of the parents, not society. Also, for orphaned kids, the govt. will take care of them and find some adaptors to transfer.
""unskilled workers should be hired below living wage" - we are talking about "living" wage, "living", as in "life"" Most unskilled workers does not need to sustain their life, because most of them are teenagers that needs skills and experience.
@@AnimMouse now you’re promoting child labor ... What about the unskilled workers who are not teenagers ? They don’t deserve to live?
@@TapajitDey That is the responsibility of the parents. Child labor happens when the parents are irresponsible, or they can't have a job due to minimum wage.