Precision of the sort you seem to be after would come at the cost of inviting people to bicker over where exactly the line should be drawn, when the precise location of the line is completely irrelevant to the argument I was making.
> An Indian would be happy to get $12 per day when Americans complain about it being minimum wage.
Looks like you didn't need an invitation. Don't let me stop you. The rabbit hole of defining "good enough pay to survive and thrive" goes much deeper than conditioning on geography.
> If your point is that some people will earn significantly less that others then I think you are true but I dont see why that is a problem.
You're still just putting words in my mouth.
> There will always be bottom 5% but what matters is how they compare with the bottom 5% of 100 years back. As long as that is positive I think thats a very good outcome.
Quite right. The problem is that while the news is positive in aggregate, a large pocket of people have experienced a severe regression in the quality of their social contract, and we have good reason to fear that the phenomenon will spread. History counts in the market's favor, but past performance is no guarantee of future returns.
Precision of the sort you seem to be after would come at the cost of inviting people to bicker over where exactly the line should be drawn, when the precise location of the line is completely irrelevant to the argument I was making.
> An Indian would be happy to get $12 per day when Americans complain about it being minimum wage.
Looks like you didn't need an invitation. Don't let me stop you. The rabbit hole of defining "good enough pay to survive and thrive" goes much deeper than conditioning on geography.
> If your point is that some people will earn significantly less that others then I think you are true but I dont see why that is a problem.
You're still just putting words in my mouth.
> There will always be bottom 5% but what matters is how they compare with the bottom 5% of 100 years back. As long as that is positive I think thats a very good outcome.
Quite right. The problem is that while the news is positive in aggregate, a large pocket of people have experienced a severe regression in the quality of their social contract, and we have good reason to fear that the phenomenon will spread. History counts in the market's favor, but past performance is no guarantee of future returns.