Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Someone has to pay for the increased minimum wage too. I agree with parent that EITC has more bang for the buck if you're interested in helping the poor. I guess someone on the right would just want neither; fair enough I say.

WONKY ASIDE:

The incidence of the minimum wage is almost certainly equivalent to that of a regressive consumption tax. So assuming no disemployment effects, it basically transfers wealth from everyone who buys the products of low-wage labor (disproportionately from the poor) to people who work minimum wage jobs, some of whom are also poor. It also kills some low-wage workers' jobs.

By contrast, EITC is a transfer from people who pay income tax (disproportionately the rich) to people with low incomes. So unlike the minimum wage increase, it is unambiguously beneficial to the poor.

In my personal opinion, one of the big reasons the minimum wage is so popular (and it really is, even across party lines) is that the costs are hidden, so people can pretend it's being paid for by big bad corporations even though the costs are ultimately borne by disproportionately poor consumers.



Why do you assume that consumers will pay the cost of higher wages, and not owners (via lower profits)?


>and not owners (via lower profits)?

Because 'free market' competition would have already reduced that cost/profit via other market factors. Assume the market is colluding on price and it's not hard to see that consumers could pay the cost.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: