You can set minimum wage to zero and you still get trashed streets because trashed streets aren’t considered worth fixing every week. Instead there’s an equilibrium where X money is used to maintain reasonably clean streets and people will just spend less if they already look ok.
Minimum wage isn’t the issue here. You said 30-50 cents an hour isn’t “relevant” yourself, but haven’t backed that up with anything. They could be paid 0 for all I care, the situation would be the same: folks who have stolen something from society (be it direct financial losses or more abstract things like health and safety and peaceful movement) being made to give retributions back to society for their crimes. There are easy wins here (trash), and more involved projects.
It’s backed up by the finite supply of unemployed people willing and able to work below minimum wage.
As to your obsession with clean streets, the government does spend money on it the general public doesn’t actually care enough to spend more on it. It doesn’t matter how cheap it is as long as nobody is willing to fund it.
Elaborate. As of yet you’ve said nothing to refute the idea that forcing people who aren’t working to start working would result in more work being completed.
> Elaborate. As of yet you’ve said nothing to refute the idea that forcing people who aren’t working to start working would result in more work being completed.
That’s literally the first time you made that argument, so obviously I didn’t counter it.
Prisons labor is already forced. It’s even an enumerated exception in the constitution.
If you argument was simply to send these people to prison then just suggest that. The only thing worth discussing is non prison labor and thus non forced labor.
Has the parent comment already fallen out of your context window? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41386593 That’s exactly what I’m suggesting, you’re wasting my time if you can’t even keep track of a basic thread.
There are no jobs that want jobless people. There's few that even want 18 year olds
Your response was: Plenty of work for prison laborers.
My response of “at 20-50 cents an hour, but that’s not really relevant here.“ Obviously 20-50 cents is the nominal prison labor rate, but it also excludes the overhead of keeping prisoners which is what makes it “irrelevant” as a cost.
Thus by responding to the nominal rate you implicitly acknowledged we are no longer talking about prisoners because the actual cost of prison labor is ~64,000$ / year / inmate not their nominal wage.
“No, because the people are already a net drain on society.”
Not a 64,000$ drain on society. There’s roughly 1 correction officer per 4.9 inmates and that excludes many jobs associated with prisoners like administrative staff etc.
And again, nobody is willing to fund it at the current price. It’s simple economics that if the price were to be lower, the willingness to buy it would go up. I don’t need to explain this to you.
You are basing things on economics 101 models, demand curves max out. People don’t drink infinite water when it gets cheap enough. I don’t think streets need to be cleaned as much as they are, and that’s not based on how much it costs to clean them.
Ah. I should have guessed the “homeless people categorically cannot do the things I can do and never will” axiom was at the root of this argument. I chose not to be so defeatist nor elitist.
