Because there is nothing that a low-skill teenager can't do that a low-skill breadwinner can. That's the point. We need to lift the floor so that even low-skill people can support themselves and their families. Otherwise people with supports having their living subsidized will outcompete people without those supports. Just look at the controversy about having to be well-born to be able to afford zero-income internships that are the gateway into some industries.

> Otherwise people with supports having their living subsidized will outcompete people without those supports.

And this sounds like some form of UBI.

If everyone had some income floor as a starting point, the government could be far less involved in micromanaging employment relationships, and low income people would be in a better position to turn down jobs offering very low wages.

I don't see how that would work. If a teenager or college student gets the UBI they can still outcompete the breadwinner, unless the UBI is enough to provide... but why wouldn't they just stay home and raise their kids or provide care to their elderly parents etc?

They absolutely could do that, which is the point. UBI gives you the freedom to make the best decision regarding how to use your time. If UBI is enough to cover you, then spending time at home raising kids and taking care of your family may be the best use of your time, which is a win for both your family and society.

Both of those things provide value to society as a whole. Raising children that will grow up and be part of society has value. Taking care of those that have difficulty caring for themselves has value. Both those things have additional value in having people doing it that are emotionally connected, and not strangers doing it for a paycheck to have their basic needs met. Allowing people to be able to do those tasks and still meet their basic needs is good for everyone. It also takes pressure off the job market, where basically every single person needs a job. Companies could more freely automate low paying low skill jobs without having to worry about what happens to those people that would be “put out of work”.

> Because there is nothing that a low-skill teenager can't do that a low-skill breadwinner can.

that's not really true. I remember it being surprisingly difficult to get my first minimum wage job as a teenager. the managers at grocery stores and even gas stations would ask if I had any prior work experience and never call me back. most employers would prefer an older and more experienced person if they could get them for the same price. I ended up getting a job at a restaurant, but that was only because the owner was a creepy manchild who wanted paid teenage friends to relive his highschool glory days with.

Pretty much all lucrative career paths have pretty well paid internships. Anecdotally, I've never met someone who's taken an unpaid internship. Of course this sample sized is bias as I work in finance and most of the people I know do as well (some tech as well).

What kinds of industries have no pay internships?

Basically everything in the humanities, museums, etc.

Although those jobs tend to be low-paying and insecure as well.

Or they're real lottery jobs that may effectively require volunteer/low-wage dues paying.

But, in any case, internships that don't pay or pay minimally tend to indicate a field that you probably won't earn a lot in anyway.

There are probably exceptions with some summer jobs where the pay may not be a lot but it looks good on a resume in a field that does pay good salaries.

Kids going into medical school will often volunteer in research labs or shadow doctors for free during undergrad. Schools won't consider kids who haven't done this.

There are also paid ways to do this as well like being a medical scribe.

Also if you're poor there much bigger barriers to being a doctor than an volunteering. Like the decade of unpaid schooling. Or remove the need for an undergrad degree for doctor's like the rest of the world.

It is very different from continent to continent and country to country, but the not paid internships I know are for positions that prepare you for tough to get jobs or where the training the intern receives is far more valuable than the work the intern does. Some internships are closer to free schooling in a company with the option to get hired after 3 months. There are bad companies that use internship as cheap or unpaid labor, but that's the abuse of the system, it does not means it is always bad.

I believe film and media. I guess those are only well-paid for a few. A search for "unpaid internships" brought up PR. I'm guessing it would appear more often in industries where networking is much more important and job mobility is lower than in STEM.

It's important to talk about what we're talking about. Uber/Lyft do a bit of sleight of hand by talking about the "median driver's median hourly wage" when they ought to be talking about the "median hourly wage." If there are jobs available for low-skilled teenagers that's fine, but that's a misrepresentation.

In fact, in most cases, low-skilled teenagers, even if they are a majority of workers in a role, still make up a minority of hours worked. Similarly, people putting in 0-20 hours make up 2/3rds of the drivers but something like 25% of the actual hours worked. So they're not really what we should be looking at when looking at what Uber/Lyft's business actually looks like.

80% of Uber/Lyft drivers have other jobs. The vast majority of drivers will be worse off with a floor on earnings that makes many earning periods no longer viable. Those are people who have decided to trade their free time for money and if there were better alternatives they wouldn't be driving for Lyft/Uber. Ignoring them because they drive less hours per week doesn't give us a reason why we should ignore their economic interests. If the goal of the law is to make sure that the 20% of full time drivers are better off, they're probably better off by making regulations around that specifically rather than sacrificing 80% of the drivers who have other jobs (that clearly aren't making ends meet on their own - because they're driving extra hours for ride share companies on top of their existing jobs).

The goal is simply that all hours worked are for minimum wage. Under Seattle law, paying someone less than minimum wage is theft. Nobody is ignoring anyone's economic interests. They are simply attempting to stop wage theft.

I'm not sure I've seen a formal definition of wage theft. Certainly I can start a poorly performing business in Seattle and lose money or could make less than minimum wage. It doesn't feel like anyone is stealing money from me there.

Some work produces less than minimum wage value. Minimum wage was initially created to price minorities out of the market. Cutting off earning opportunities that people would do (and they're currently doing it) but that fall below that arbitrary earning floor only restricts total earning opportunities. That so many people seem to be willing to drive for ride share companies tells us it's currently better than any other alternatives and that they're willing to accept their current payments.

Doesn't matter what minimum wage was used for if we agree that it works for us today.

Wouldn't my business make more money for my shareholders if most of the labor was framed as meant for low skilled teenagers working random short shifts?

You still need to convince someone to take the job. Why is someone who doesn't need that level of flexibility and wants an ordinary full time job going to choose that over Walmart?

And if there is an actual reason, why take that option away from someone who is choosing it on purpose?

> Why is someone who doesn't need that level of flexibility and wants an ordinary full time job going to choose that over Walmart?

Why are you assuming there are always other jobs available? In the case when there is, I can see your point. But when there are not it's no longer a choice. Sometimes it's better to just things off of the table to make the whole system better. And yeah it does suck for people in unique circumstances. It's really a balancing act that requires nuance and compromise.

> Why are you assuming there are always other jobs available? In the case when there is, I can see your point. But when there are not it's no longer a choice. Sometimes it's better to just things off of the table to make the whole system better. And yeah it does suck for people in unique circumstances. It's really a balancing act that requires nuance and compromise.

If there aren't other jobs available, you haven't made the whole system better.

I'm not convinced that a higher level of "no job at all" is a better overall fit for society than "some people drive Uber" given that Uber isn't a particularly exploitive thing in terms of destroying the body or inflexible hours or other problems of the past.

It seems like we're trading off a useful form of semi-employment for a greater need for direct redistribution, and I'd rather my redistribution be partially-Uber-shaped and provide at least some features.

A world where Uber exists needs a less-high absolute redistributed benefits floor, and results in some more work getting done to people's benefit.

The problem is, we just are really bad at providing that base benefits floor, and we're trying to make Uber magically fix that for us.

If there isn't another better job available, does it really make the system better to take away what many people find to be their best option?

Even if you have a part-time job, you should be paid enough that if you were to be working that job full-time you would be able to support yourself.

If you're not being paid enough to live on 40 hours a week, you're underpaid.

> If you're not being paid enough to live on 40 hours a week, you're underpaid.

This is perhaps a core disagreement, which is wroth digging into. I'm willing to engage with this idea but the disagreement area is critical here.

First, what it means to "live on 40 hours a week" is highly variable from person to person, is it not? If you agree, shouldn't we then avoid making broad judgments based on that concept? I suggest that we leave such judgments to the employee and leave it on him to make decisions on those details.

Second, supposing that an individual decides he doesn't earn enough: isn't is better to rely on him to investigate what he can do to address the situation? There are many things that can be done to address the situation from working more hours, to changing jobs, to taking on training for a new job for example. Isn't this preferable?

> supposing that an individual decides he doesn't earn enough

All forms of safety nets require the consideration of a reasonable floor. I mean if someone feels public transport is beneath them, well tough, but have a warm safe place to sleep with a locked door and fridge seems reasonable. Of course, in time the floor will rise.

> isn't is better to rely on him to investigate what he can do to address the situation? There are many things that can be done to address the situation from working more hours,

People shouldn't have to spend all their time working, even if they have no worthwhile skills. Just because someone has no economic value doesn't mean they don't have human value. They should still have a life.

> to changing jobs, to taking on training for a new job for example.

Those require money and time, not easily obtained. Also, the people who need it most are those with the least amount of access to it.

> Isn't this preferable?

This is personal question, but I say no. Even if you don't agree, then maybe you'll agree with this "The best reason to feed the barbarians at the gate is to keep them out of your gate". Law & order is a democracy, and when enough people decide that the current order doesn't benefit them, it ends.

> but have a warm safe place to sleep with a locked door and fridge seems reasonable.

Yeah, that seems reasonable to me but we also know that there's a great deal of variation on all of the details there (warm, safe, locked door, refrigerator). I see it as necessary to allow/require individuals to make the decisions on all those details. I see it as a necessary condition for people to be free.

> People shouldn't have to spend all their time working, even if they have no worthwhile skills. Just because someone has no economic value doesn't mean they don't have human value. They should still have a life.

I'm sympathetic to this outlook. It's the details of it where I get tripped up with people. One area in particular is the state where someone has no worthwhile skills. I think that while a human being has no less dignity when he has no worthwhile skills, that is an unsustainable state that needs work. Similarly, I question the implicit assumption that there is a connection between someone's economic value and intrinsic worth as a human being. Perhaps what we disagree on what is it looks like for a society to place minimum acceptable value on such life.

> Those require money and time, not easily obtained. Also, the people who need it most are those with the least amount of access to it.

I don't dispute that money and time are required, and that it may not be easy. However I still maintain the responsibility lies in those individuals/workers.

> This is personal question, but I say no. Even if you don't agree, then maybe you'll agree with this "The best reason to feed the barbarians at the gate is to keep them out of your gate". Law & order is a democracy, and when enough people decide that the current order doesn't benefit them, it ends.

There is a version of the statement I could agree with, but in your specific statement of barbarians at the gate, it's also a possibility to not feed them. It really depends and since it's a hypothetical I don't want to engage with it too much. But I do agree that you can't expect to build up a huge class of miserable people and expect stability forever. The question to me is, how can we best serve them? I adamantly prefer to teach and raise them up, difficult as that may be, then to place demands/restrictions on employers.