nostr:npub1kpwlxpzkxfmuxjmzc2wp3rf9vjg0sgydmlhsnrgqr3maf59h86qqdxxzz4 nostr:npub1ukcz3c3ek9ugnmrj37cjm2q9gsaqss5j9dqwpqmx0tgkzudsseqqcp40jn nostr:npub18y7skwwwcjh4p6e09622zd2zyuhvuf6s4jdryfchqd8qhrxe32cqufm5np

I more or less agree with freemo (with some big caveats), but I want to add some context and potential solutions:

Assume that each job has a set of requirements that we’ll call {R}, and for each unique {R} there exists a real value produced when a person that meets those requirements is employed there, called V. Thus, for the set of all jobs {J} there exists the set of all requirements for all jobs {{R},{R},{R},…} and values produced {V}, and people are compensated for a portion of V they provide to the company by doing the work.

If we assume that requirements are correlated to someone’s intelligence (again, assume is the key word), even if we also assume that jobs are distributed IDENTICALLY to the intelligence distribution, freemo has a point.

Namely, there may exist jobs with values of V that fall below the minimum wage, M. If this is the case, those jobs must be collected and extended such that their values V > M; however, this necessarily expands the set of requirements for these now hybridized jobs (or {R1}+{R2} => {R1+R2} for all jobs where V

Thus, if the minimum wage is raised too high (or alternatively, there are too many applicants with insufficient requirements for the lower end of the requirements distribution), we risk creating a class of unemployable people as a vertical line moves left to right along the bell curve chopping the lower end off completely. A great example of this in the intelligence space was what the US discovered when they relaxed their IQ requirements when training soldiers for the Vietnam war, and why those IQ requirements were reinstated. Unfortunately, that means that 10%(not sure of the actual stat here, but I think it’s close) of the populace in the US is “not fit for military duty”, and in that case, there are vanishingly few jobs for which they will provide value and thus be employable.

Now, there are a lot of assumptions baked in here, and I don’t think this outcome is the right one. There are a lot of screwy things going on right now with the asinine “‘growth’ at all costs” mentality (and the private equity firms that accompany it) currently plaguing our economy and as a result vulnerable people are marginalized. I am of the mind that “Welfare Capitalism” that was pioneered by early GE and other US companies can and should become the more popular method of economic growth and stability, as it was what provided the conditions of the 50s and 60s, and that everyone should be able to find work. With that being said, in our current economic environment, and without substantial changes to it, I have to reluctantly agree with freemo.