> That's right, that's what we're doing.
Your position is that this is better for the people in the US who used to make that stuff?
> There are better systems than a flat minimum wage like wage boards since they're more flexible
If you want flexibility, just let the employee decide if the wage is too low. They're the person with the best knowledge of their own situation and also the one with the strongest stake in it.
> Personal responsibility doesn't exist at the level of societies. Sometimes you just get scammed, and it takes a while to get out of the situation if you do. Banning bad jobs is useful the same way banning any other scam is.
The patronizing thing you're doing is assuming that all low paying jobs are bad.
They almost universally have countervailing benefits. They're closer to where you live, have more flexible hours, are less physically demanding etc.
Because otherwise nobody would take them.
> UBI substitutes for unemployment here but it's not the same because the funding source is different. In particular the one for UBI doesn't exist.
Taxes don't exist? Unemployment isn't funded by a tax?
> UBI does not substitute for minimum wage though, because it doesn't have the effect of eliminating bad jobs.
That's exactly what it does. People have the UBI, so not taking a bad job doesn't cause them to starve, so nobody takes a bad job.
Except that now it's the actual bad jobs they don't take, based on their own understanding of their own circumstances, instead of a bureaucracy's flailing incompetent efforts to implement central planning from an ivory tower.
> In practice min wage seems to have other positive effects from this like forcing employee productivity to increase faster
This doesn't come for free. It most often comes by eliminating redundancy and slack, which increases efficiency but harms resiliency. It e.g. makes it more likely that productive companies go out of business, because when you have slack and something bad happens, you cut the slack and survive. If something else already consumed the slack and something bad happens, you go bust.
And there are already plenty of incentives to eliminate slack in favor of efficiency, so smashing the balance on purpose is counterproductive.
> in the limiting case with a monopsony employer it even increases employment because they have no other pressure to offer a market clearing wage.
A monopsony employer is a catastrophic tyrannical threat to everyone. Any solution other than "destroy the monopsony with righteous fire" is nothing but a suicide pact.