A policy that requires job hopping to get good wages discriminates against people who are less mobile: workers with families, elderly parents, older workers with more ties to their neighborhood, people who don’t have enough savings to move, people who can't afford transportation...
I’m not sure that raising the median wage is even more desirable than raising the minimum wage. If the median wage enables a good life but, say, the lowest quartile is precarious exploitative jobs close to the poverty line then raising the minimum should increase overall happiness more than just raising the median.
Dane here. We don't have a minimum wage. We rely on structural remedies for improving working conditions and wages, and they work far better than a minimum wage. The UK, on the other hand, favours direct intervention. They've been increasing their minimum wage considerably over the years. The result appears to be aggressive wage compression. Meaning very little benefit to people who get degrees and accrue experience relative to someone doing an unskilled, minimum wage job. It also appears to have created a very unfavourable job market for the young. Why hire a young and inexperienced worker for £12.71 per hour when you can hire an experienced worker for £14? Young people with degrees appear to be particularly impacted, since they "wasted" so many years on degrees which yield very little benefit, and they cannot find a job. The UK also has very tough laws about firing employees, meaning companies are incentivised to not take a chance on a young worker.
To your point: yes, people who have a weaker bargaining position in Denmark earn less. However we also have generous social safety nets, so no one ends up destitute or hungry. Ultimately, I think wages should be between an employer and employee (with or without the assistance of unions - we like our unions). If an employee has fewer skills, less experience, is unwilling or unable to move for a job, etc, they should expect to be paid less. This represents materially different value to the employer.
Britain has a few structural issues too, so someone who happens to live in a big city, especially London, will have more opportunities without having to move.
As a tangent, poverty line definitions vary by country, in Australia, for example, earning less than half the median wage is considered below the Australian poverty line.
Worth keeping in mind when doing any apples V oranges country by country comparisons of population percentages in poverty.
As I understand it, that's a fairly common definition for relative poverty (either that or 60%) though of course you're still right that it's best to confirm both the threshold the methodology is the same (or use an explicitly international comparison that covers both/all compared countries in the same work, such as those produced by the OECD or similar bodies).
Why does it have to be a choice? Raise the median, raise the minimum, use wealth created through higher productivity and a healthier labour market to redistribute to some degree, everyone wins?
The frictions we're talking about, like health insurance being tied to an employer, make things worse for families anyway - getting rid of the distortionary regulations that cause that can only be a good thing.
Higher productivity and other such benefits are a leap. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that people who work at a company longer end up more capable of contributing to that company.
In some ways this could even be an argument for the cause of enshittification of everything. When everything is liminal, it somewhat directly leads to a 'get mine and go' type mindset, which in turn leads directly to enshittification, no longer term than next quarter thinking, and so on. I've always assumed the cause of this all was MBAs, and I still think it's the primary cause, but perhaps we're creating this certain from multiple directions all at once.
That not what the paper says. They're saying that good quality jobs can lead to higher productivity. That's something discovered by Ford way back in the early 20th century when he stepped from the typical 60+ hours of the week down to our now normal 40 hour work week and saw productivity/worker increase at each step down.
For my little hypothesis to be incorrect you'd need to demonstrate that a company with less experienced workers (in terms of years worked at that specific company) is more productive than with more experienced workers. I think that's very improbable.
You should live in France, having to pay 15% of the value of your home to be allowed to move, being cash poor (which means having low flexibility) because 50% of what your company pays for you goes to mandatory social things, taxes and insurances and most of the rest goes to fixed expenses.
In France the minimum wage is roughly indexed on inflation (especially if inflation isn't too high) but getting a raise when your salary is higher than this is very difficult, especially without job hopping. Your employer knows that he can risk not giving you a raise and you can't as easily risk being upset about it.
The US isn't so different. Federal capital gains taxes will eat a minimum of 10% of the appreciated portion of your home value, and more if you're in a higher tax bracket. Many states also tax proceeds on a home sale. I've got a property that I'll be selling soon in California and I expect to pay about $400k in total taxes.
You can sell your primary residence and be exempt from capital gains taxes on the first $250,000 if you're single and $500,000 if married filing jointly.
In addition to the $250,000 (or $500,000 for a couple) exemption, you can also subtract your full cost basis in the property from the sales price. Your cost basis is calculated by starting with the price you paid for the home, and then adding purchase expenses, such as closing costs, title insurance, and any settlement fees.
Also, most (if not all) states do not tax your primary residence unless you go past the federal exemptions.
That's good info, but unfortunately none of it applies to me because I moved out of California eight years ago and the property is not my primary residence.
I reckon California is increasingly democratic but at least you're talking about a tax on some good news. It's still quite taxing because you wouldn't gain any compensation if the home lost value and because a lot of the appreciated portion is probably just following inflation.
The 15% I talked about is on the total value of the home, although to be fair 33+% of people avoid agency fees (about 7%) by selling directly to an individual.
> It wasn’t inflation per se, but the fact that wages didn’t keep up — that’s been weighing down consumer sentiment, he said. His proof: Belgium.
> “It is the only European country that had consumer confidence that bounced back after the inflation period,” Hurst said.
> That’s because it also happens to be the only European country where wage increases are directly tied to inflation. If prices go up by 7%, then by law, so does your salary.
Item 2 seems like a circular argument. If your wages did keep pace with inflation then of course subjectively there is no inflation. On the other hand this does not hold in all situations. In galloping inflation you might as well spend because savings get eroded.
Jurisdictions that require wages increase with inflation maintain purchasing power, jurisdictions that don't are inflating away your purchasing power while empowering capital (unless you're willing to take on more risk to find higher wages, if at all possible to find in the labor marketplace). It's that simple.
I’m not sure that raising the median wage is even more desirable than raising the minimum wage. If the median wage enables a good life but, say, the lowest quartile is precarious exploitative jobs close to the poverty line then raising the minimum should increase overall happiness more than just raising the median.