Minimum wage should be zero. And not a penny more.

Fascist governments have no moral right to prohibit free association of contracted agreements between two willing people.

So Elon Musk, the richest person in the world and almost a trillionaire, has a moral right to pay Marginalized people, with no significant job options, next to nothing for their services? If they have no real alternative options and the number of people in the labor pool is effectively unlimited at least globally... how could you not see that as exploitation?

He has a moral right to pay nobody anything, employ nobody, create nothing, retire, and laugh at you all day long.

Elon will never be your bitch.

I expect that economists get more than that.

Sweet spot is probably 12.50 territory for minimum wage

the best way to increase wages is by universal basic income, or basic income for those who are below some wage number. Minimum wage is just a more complicated form of government provided money, where money comes not from regular taxes but from the tax on business itself, irrelevant of how poor that business is doing.

the solution for poverty is simply to give people money. Its not exactly a rocket science.

Economists usually have no any understanding of economy. I have never seen anyone who claims to be "economist" having even the basic understanding of country's economics.

the reason why government should give people money, is because it fuels businesses.

Businesses and people with money are in bi conditional relationship.

You can open bunch of businesses. If people dont have enough money, business cant sell much.

Likewise, people can have all the money, but without businesses, nothing to buy.

So the two conditions for economic growth are:

1. People having more money
2. Opening many businesses

When you ignore the 1, by not giving people extra money from government, the businesses by logical necessity have less customers, less profit, and higher failure rate.

Same is true for high taxes on businesses and investors.

the production of goods increase only makes sense when someone can buy what is produced. this is why increasing production without increasing money supply is economical self-defeat.

You can effectively solve all poverty of bottom 15% of population in USA with basic income for them, which would be 1000$ per month, for less than 1 trillion dollars per year. this is several times cheaper than what US pays for healthcare.

Using a U.S. population of about 349 million people in 2026, the bottom 15% would be roughly:

[

349{,}000{,}000 \times 0.15 \approx 52.35 \text{ million people}

]

If each person received $1,000 per month:

[

52.35 \text{ million} \times $1{,}000 = $52.35 \text{ billion per month}

]

Yearly cost:

[

$52.35 \text{ billion} \times 12 \approx $628 \text{ billion per year}

]

So the approximate cost would be:

1. $52 billion per month
2. $628 billion per year

This assumes:

1. every person in the bottom 15% qualifies,
2. payments go to individuals rather than households,
3. no administrative costs,
4. no taxes recovered from the payments,
5. and no behavioral/economic effects.

Yes, giving the bottom 15% of Americans $1,000 per month would almost certainly reduce poverty substantially in the short term.

A payment of:

[

$1{,}000 \times 12 = $12{,}000 \text{ per year}

]

is large enough to lift many individuals above the official U.S. poverty threshold, especially when combined with existing income or benefits.

Some likely effects:

1. lower homelessness,
2. reduced food insecurity,
3. fewer unpaid bills and evictions,
4. improved health outcomes,
5. reduced extreme poverty,
6. more financial stability during unemployment or illness.

Research from cash-transfer and basic-income experiments in places like the U.S., Canada, and Finland generally shows that direct cash assistance is very effective at reducing material poverty.

Compared to universal basic income for everyone, targeting only the bottom 15% is far cheaper while still concentrating aid on the poorest households.

In the U.S., poverty is usually measured at the household/family level, not per individual.

So if:

1. 2 adults each receive $1,000/month,
2. the household has $2,000/month total,

then yearly household income would be:

[

$2{,}000 \times 12 = $24{,}000

]

For a 2-person household, that is near or slightly above the official federal poverty threshold in recent years (which is roughly around $20k–$22k depending on year and definition). So statistically, many such households would no longer count as “in poverty.”

But important nuance:

1. In low-cost areas, $24k/year for 2 adults may be survivable.
2. In expensive cities, it can still mean severe hardship.
3. Official poverty thresholds are often criticized for underestimating real living costs.

Also, many poor households already have some earned income. Adding $12k per adult could move a very large share above the official poverty line.

For example:

1. a single adult earning $10k/year + $12k basic income → $22k total,
2. a couple earning $18k combined + $24k basic income → $42k total.

So even a targeted $1,000/month program would likely reduce official poverty rates dramatically.

Using the same rough assumptions for Bosnia and Herzegovina:

1. Population: ~3.2 million
2. Bottom 20%: ~640,000 people
3. Rough split:
4. ~510,000 adults
5. ~130,000 children

If each person in that bottom 20% received 300 KM per month:

Monthly cost

1. Adults: 510,000 × 300 = 153 million KM
2. Children: 130,000 × 300 = 39 million KM

Total: ~192 million KM per month

Yearly cost

~2.3 billion KM per year

That’s roughly:

1. €1.15–1.2 billion annually
2. about 3–4% of Bosnia’s GDP (much more realistic than the 500 KM version)

Likely poverty reduction

Bosnia’s poverty rate is roughly 17–18%.

A 300 KM monthly supplement is still very large relative to low Bosnian incomes:

1. Minimum wages are often around 1,000+ KM gross (net varies by entity)
2. Many pensions are under 700 KM
3. Poor rural households often live on considerably less

For a household with:

1. 1 adult: +300 KM/month
2. 2 adults: +600 KM/month
3. 2 adults + 2 children: +1,200 KM/month

That would move many households above Bosnia’s poverty threshold.

A realistic effect could be reducing poverty from:

1. ~17–18% → ~8–12%

It would likely:

✔ eliminate most severe material deprivation

✔ sharply reduce child poverty

✔ reduce pressure to emigrate for purely financial survival

✔ improve nutrition/heating/housing security

Main risks:

1. higher taxes needed to fund it
2. some rent/price inflation in poorer areas
3. possible lower work participation for some recipients if poorly designed

Compared to the 500 KM plan, the 300 KM plan is much more fiscally plausible while still having a very large anti-poverty effect.

That model is more economically viable than using money printing alone, because it tries to increase both:

1. consumer demand (through the 300 KM transfers), and
2. domestic supply/production (through investment and low taxes).

The key issue is whether domestic production grows fast enough to absorb the extra spending.

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, a major problem is that much consumer spending leaks into imports:

1. imported food,
2. cars,
3. fuel,
4. electronics,
5. household goods.

If the government simply prints money and distributes it, imports rise quickly and pressure the KM/euro peg.

But if the government simultaneously:

1. supports local factories,
2. agriculture,
3. energy production,
4. construction,
5. food processing,
6. small businesses,
7. and export industries,

then more of the new demand stays inside the domestic economy.

That reduces inflationary pressure compared to pure money-print financing.

A mixed strategy could theoretically look like:

1. moderate targeted transfers (like your 300 KM idea),
2. low business taxes,
3. state investment in strategic sectors,
4. infrastructure building,
5. incentives for local manufacturing,
6. export promotion,
7. vocational training,
8. cheap business loans.

Historically, versions of this approach have been used in:

1. South Korea (industrial policy),
2. China,
3. Singapore,
4. and partially in some European social-market systems.

However, several constraints still matter for Bosnia:

1. Currency board limits

Bosnia cannot freely print money on the scale of fully sovereign monetary systems unless it weakens the euro peg.

2. Small domestic market

Bosnia’s population is small, so long-term growth usually requires exports.

3. Institutional efficiency

Industrial policy works much better when:

1. corruption is controlled,
2. investments are competent,
3. bureaucracy functions reasonably well.

Otherwise, large state investment can become:

1. patronage,
2. waste,
3. politically connected monopolies.

4. Productivity matters

If new money grows faster than actual production of goods/services, inflation still appears eventually.

A realistic outcome of such a policy mix might be:

Best-case scenario

1. lower poverty,
2. stronger domestic industry,
3. higher employment,
4. reduced emigration,
5. moderate inflation,
6. gradual GDP growth.

Worst-case scenario

1. inflation,
2. corruption,
3. unproductive state spending,
4. currency instability,
5. rising debt,
6. weak investor confidence.

The outcome depends less on the idea itself and more on:

1. scale,
2. competence,
3. productivity growth,
4. and monetary stability.

Economically, your proposal is closest to a hybrid of:

1. social democracy,
2. developmental state policy,
3. and moderate monetary expansion.

A relatively stable version of your idea for Bosnia and Herzegovina would probably need to combine:

1. modest money creation,
2. targeted basic income,
3. production investment,
4. export growth,
5. and protection of currency stability.

The key principle is:

New money should grow productive capacity nearly as fast as it grows consumption.

Otherwise inflation overwhelms the benefits.

Possible “Best-Case” Hybrid Model

1. Moderate Basic Income (not universal)

Instead of giving money to everyone:

Target

Bottom 20% only.

Amount

1. 300 KM/adult
2. 300 KM/child

Estimated cost

~2.3 billion KM/year.

This is large but not impossible if phased in gradually.

2. Funding Structure

Instead of financing everything with money printing:

This is important because pure money-print funding would likely destabilize the KM.

3. Controlled Monetary Expansion

Because Bosnia has a currency board, money creation must stay limited.

A safer approach would be:

Annual monetary expansion

Maybe:

1. 2–5% of GDP maximum initially.

Money creation should mainly fund:

1. infrastructure,
2. productive investment,
3. industrial lending,
4. energy,
5. agriculture,
6. housing construction.

Not pure consumption alone.

4. Production Investment Strategy

The most important part.

Government-backed investment should focus on sectors Bosnia can realistically compete in.

High-priority sectors

Agriculture & food processing

Bosnia imports a lot of food.

Increasing domestic production:

1. reduces import pressure,
2. creates rural jobs,
3. improves trade balance.

Energy

Bosnia has strong:

1. hydro,
2. solar,
3. some industrial energy capacity.

Cheap energy lowers costs across the economy.

Wood, metal, and manufacturing

Bosnia already has industrial tradition in:

1. furniture,
2. metalworking,
3. machinery.

Construction & housing

Large housing construction:

1. creates jobs,
2. reduces rent inflation,
3. stimulates local supply chains.

IT & outsourcing

High-skill exports bring foreign currency without massive physical infrastructure.

5. Tax Model

Instead of high taxes:

Keep business taxes relatively low

To encourage:

1. hiring,
2. investment,
3. entrepreneurship.

But:

Use efficient VAT collection and anti-corruption enforcement.

Bosnia loses large amounts through:

1. informal economy,
2. tax evasion,
3. political inefficiency.

Reducing leakage can partly finance welfare.

6. Domestic Production Incentives

Tie incentives to real production.

Examples:

1. tax cuts for exporters,
2. low-interest industrial loans,
3. subsidies tied to employment/output,
4. domestic sourcing incentives,
5. worker training programs.

Avoid giving large unconditional subsidies.

7. Inflation Control Mechanisms

This is critical.

Use phased implementation

Example:

1. Year 1: 100 KM
2. Year 2: 200 KM
3. Year 3: 300 KM

This lets production adjust.

Increase housing supply

Housing shortages can turn transfers into rent inflation.

Prioritize domestic essentials

Especially:

1. food,
2. energy,
3. construction materials.

8. Currency Stability

Bosnia’s currency board is one of the biggest constraints.

So:

1. avoid massive uncontrolled deficits,
2. maintain euro reserves,
3. encourage exports and tourism,
4. avoid rapid KM expansion.

Otherwise people may flee into euros.

Likely Results (Best-Case)

If competently managed over 10+ years:

Possible positives

1. poverty reduction from ~17% → perhaps 7–10%
2. large reduction in extreme poverty
3. lower emigration
4. higher employment
5. stronger rural economies
6. higher domestic demand
7. moderate GDP growth acceleration

Likely side effects

1. somewhat higher inflation
2. political resistance
3. EU/IMF criticism if deficits grow too much
4. risk of corruption reducing efficiency

Biggest Economic Principle

The model works best if:

\text{Money Growth} \approx \text{Production Growth}

If money creation greatly exceeds production growth:

1. inflation accelerates,
2. imports surge,
3. currency stability weakens.

If production growth keeps pace:

1. poverty can fall without severe instability.

That balance is the core challenge of any system combining:

1. welfare,
2. state investment,
3. and monetary expansion.

There is no amount of direct welfare that can sustain unproductive people.

The solution to the problem of unproductive people is obvious.

There is no amount of direct welfare that can sustain unproductive people

This is so their kids suffer less from parent's poor choices, and for productive people who simply don't climb up.

Foster Homes.

Those are worse.

So whats your take?

The best way to increase wages is by universal basic income,

Nonsense. The best way to increase wages [minimum, or otherwise, I don't care] is to begin educating kids in elementary school about ambition, planning, and execution. The subject matter of these three characteristics does not really matter, and the income will take care of itself. Be ambitious about what interests a person, make a plan to become the best educated about that subject, and execute the plan. Education does not necessarily mean only an elementary, secondary, and college sequence. What ever the best education is for a particular subject, pursue that course. No later than beginning high school, learn the basics of handling money with those same 3 principles; how to be ambitious in its earning, plan how to accomplish what is needed, and work the plan. Money is a byproduct of this pursuit, not really the primary goal. Be among the best in what one does, expect a commensurate income.

Do this, "minimum wage" is an insult to suggest.

By implementing these three pursuits, in high school, during the mid-60s, I secured a part-time working position doing illustrations of set designs and other stuff in the movie industry in L.A. at 15, earning $10/hr when min wage was about #$1.40, working about 20 hours/week, and over 40 hrs during the summer. When I left that position after my first year of college at UCLA, that starting $10 ended at $25, and I was also doing oil paintings and large abstract wall graphics for a few actors and others in the industry.

Be ambitious about what interests a person, make a plan to become the best educated about that subject, and execute the plan

Sure, but we are talking about reality.

What is more real than having ambition, making a plan, and executing the plan? Since when is simple positive goal setting, and achieving the goal not reality?

Nonsense. The best way to increase wages [minimum, or otherwise, I don't care] is to begin educating kids in elementary school about ambition, planning, and execution. The subject matter of these three characteristics does not really matter, and the income will take care of itself. Be ambitious about what interests a person, make a plan to become the best educated about that subject, and execute the plan. Education does not necessarily mean only an elementary, secondary, and college sequence. What ever the best education is for a particular subject, pursue that course. No later than beginning high school, learn the basics of handling money with those same 3 principles; how to be ambitious in its earning, plan how to accomplish what is needed, and work the plan. Money is a byproduct of this pursuit, not really the primary goal. Be among the best in what one does, expect a commensurate income.

Oh, so that's how you solve the problem of unproductive poor people?

Yes. Too many are poor only because they lack ambition, let alone planning and execution. Ambition leads the list because without personal ambition, illiteracy is a natural result. From there, the path is downhill. It does not help when wokeness merely redefines words to fit an illiterate audience, including themselves. Read: any word salad by Kamalala. She thinks the issue is solved simply by going down on Willie Brown.

Yes, it separates those who want to succeed in life and merely need to be taught the ropes from those who are perennially lazy and expect to be supported when they are fully capable of self-sufficiency. Just as in crime, there are people who will prey on others when they can provide for themselves, and choose to be predators, and all the legislation in the world too ban their bad behavior will have percentage points of failure, because human behavior can be lawless.

Too many are poor only because they lack ambition, let alone planning and execution.

If we're talking about any individual, sure this all sounds great. If we're talking about policy, this is totally useless. In a capitalistic society we're all competing with each other, so there will always be people at the bottom. It doesn't matter how much ambition everyone has, anyone can get rich, everyone cannot.

And that consideration doesn't even factor things like medical debt, or having to put your career on hold for loved ones. Not everybody can get to dedicate themselves towards their financial future like you were able to do.

Rapper Killer Mike did an episode where he found a group of gang members and gave them an opportunity. He walked them through the process of coming up with a product (they decided to make their own soda), funded the their start up costs, and showed them how to go from product development and licencing to finally getting someone to purchase their product for retail.

What this episode demonstrated is that people do not fall into the stereotypical unproductive lives because they're just bad or naturally lazy people, they fall into it mostly because they don't see a world that provides them real opportunity to succeed. Once he gave that to them, you could see how their entire outlook and approach to life changed.

The episode ended with them (they were Blood's) setting up a tent at a county fair selling their soda's right next to the Crypt's who were selling their soda's. Two rival gangs, competing with each other selling soda. Turns out there was a way to get them to stop shooting at each other.

You would have a lot less lazy people in this country if there was a real way for people to make it. That is fading by the day as the rich continue to get richer.

Minimum wage should be zero. And not a penny more.

We tried that, the result was a society where a handful of business owners lived a life of luxury while everyone else starved working for Pennies.

Fascist governments have no moral right to prohibit free association of contracted agreements between two willing people.

The job of the individual is to look out for the individual's best interest, the job of the government is to look out for the interests of the whole. If an arrangement between two parties has the potential to negatively impact the well being of the rest of us, then the government not only has the right but the duty to intervene.

The job of the individual is to look out for the individual's best interest; the job of the government is to look out for the interests of the whole

Wrong, the job of a capitalist is to look after the interests of the consumers, or society. If he fails in this task, he is eliminated.

The job of a politician is to look after himself and secure his own personal power. If he fails in this task, he is eliminated.

The job of a capitalist is to serve consumers and society efficiently. If he fails at that task, customers leave, and he is eliminated by competition.

The job of a politician is to secure power, influence, and reelection. If he fails at that task, he is eliminated politically.

This 180-degree thinking is precisely why the USA is in decline, along with most of Europe.

Minimum wage should be zero. And not a penny more.

We tried that, the result was a society where a handful of business owners lived a life of luxury while everyone else starved working for Pennies.

Assuming you are not cherry-picking a brief moment in USA history where the workforce was transitioning from agricultural skills to industrial manufacturing skills, leading to a huge surplus of unskilled labor, at a time when the population of the USA was also being artificially increased with low-skilled immigrants adding to the workforce. Assuming you were not deliberately ignoring a temporary correction in the free market as the supply of workers and the demand for workers eventually stabilized...

Your argument oversimplifies history by assuming poverty was caused mainly by the absence of minimum wage laws rather than by the fact that humanity across the globe itself was dramatically less productive and less wealthy in those earlier eras. People were not poor in the 1800s because there was no minimum wage; they were poor because industrial output, technology, medicine, and living standards were far lower overall. Capital allocation was scarce. Productivity was tuned and tied to farming. The undisputable fact remains: wages are driven by productivity, labor demand, and competition for workers, not by government mandates and fiat. In fact, forcing wages artificially above the productive value of certain labor always reduces hiring opportunities for low-skill and inexperienced workers. Capitalism, despite its flaws, being the worst system out there except for all the others, including economic fascism, objectively increased long-term living standards massively, increased life expectancy, increased food production, increased consumer access, and increased technological progress over time. The real question is not whether greed exists, but which system of incentives produces more prosperity and upward mobility overall for all waged labor.

During the shift from agricultural economies to industrial factory work, huge numbers of workers entered cities with little formal industrial training. ANd yes, employers did hire them at low wages initially because their productivity in factory systems was still risky and uncertain, and those skills had to be developed on the job. But over time, while those workers gained experience, specialization, and familiarity with industrial processes, we know that their productivity and wages naturally rose together. Now, I am not saying that those historical labor conditions were good or fair, but the simplistic narrative that low wages alone caused industrial poverty ignores the realities of a transitioning economy. Many people forget that the USA and other countries were undergoing a massive economic and technological transition where the workforce itself was still developing the skills required for higher-productivity labor. Below market wages were absolutely necessary to provide farmers fresh off the fields a chance at gaining valuable productivity skills.

If you're going to argue that minimum wage policies are primarily a productivity incentive, I can easily write another page-long rebuttal explaining why artificially raising the cost of low-skill labor incentivizes automation, workforce reduction, reduced hiring of inexperienced workers, a reduction in the rate at which the general force gains on the job skills, and consolidation toward larger firms that can absorb the artificial costs much more easily than small businesses.

The job of the individual is to look out for the individual's best interest; the job of the government is to look out for the interests of the whole

Wrong, the job of a capitalist is to look after the interests of the consumers, or society. If he fails in this task, he is eliminated.

The job of a politician is to look after himself and secure his own personal power. If he fails in this task, he is eliminated.

The job of a capitalist is to serve consumers and society efficiently. If he fails at that task, customers leave, and he is eliminated by competition.

The job of a politician is to secure power, influence, and reelection. If he fails at that task, he is eliminated politically.

The capitalist has to provide something tangibly useful. Most consumers will NOT buy a promise. The consequences are immediate.

The politician needs only to promise something useful. Most voters will vote for promises. The consequences of failure can take decades to manifest, especially with a voter base easily persuaded by excuses.

This 180-degree thinking is precisely why the USA is in decline, along with most of Europe.

anyone can get rich, everyone cannot.

If I really believed that, I would be the hypocrite you accuse me of being. But, I do believe that when one believes there is any sort of available money ceiling, as Oba'a claimed there was ["There comes a time when you have made enough money," he said], and many people believe him, but he was and is dead wrong. Ambition is the lack, and by denying that, as well as planning and execution, the poor will remain poor, and average will remain average. Self-limitation is the nemesis in the mirror.

Almost everyone can get rich; it's a simple calculus. Consume less than you produce. It's that easy. And incredibly easy in today's technological age, where you don't have to build a house out of logs and hunt the forest for food.

If one cannot or will not produce, one cannot ever be rich. Accept it.

Oh, I am way beyond mere acceptance; I am absolutely on board.

Wouldn't a more honest version of your arguments be that exploitation of the poor by the rich is ok as long as their relationship is consensual?

To you are all consensual relationships non exploitative? If not what are some examples of consensual relationships that are exploitative to you? Why dont you view as exploitative the effectively unlimited labor pool plus some peoples lack of options but to accept beans for pay?