Why do you think that? The U.S is a much more diverse country (with many more people) than The Netherlands and Poland. There is naturally going to be less equality due to this diversity. Minimum wages act as a barrier of entry in the work force for unskilled poor. If anything they increase inequality by forcing unskilled workers to migrate to less opportunistic states, while the middle and upper classes stay in the cities that have a lot of resources which have become only hospitable to them.

As for tuition, community college costs $1,500 per semester ($3,000 per year) and students with high need get federal grants and/or loans to cover their tuition + living expenses. If one goes to community college for two years and then from there to a four year university for another two years, one can graduate with less than $20,000 in debt. I come from a bottom 10% family, with a single parent and I go to a top 20 university (Carnegie Mellon University.) The university covers four-fifths of my approximately $50,000 tuition through private grants, and the rest is covered in federal/state grants and a little bit in loans. I work part-time to decrease my loan debt, and have kept my loans under $20,000 after four years. I will proceed to graduate school and end up with a job in science after I receive my PhD. My starting salary should be somewhere north of $70,000. My mother's income at 48 years old is $11,000 + $4,000 in tips/gratuity.

I will never accept people from other countries or people who have never experience "poverty" in a first world country  telling me that the poor in this country have very little opportunity, when I as a natural-born "poor" person have had a lot of opportunities. I took advantage of these opportunities and worked for where I am in life.

Edit: By the way the population of the U.S is one of the most productive.

Haha, student loans in the US are a total sham. Designed to get people into massive debt before they even start their adult lives. 

How are the less fortunate supposed to go to school? They can't afford it.

No, they are not. Bill Gates is going to go to the grave with billions of dollars. Also they are going to spend it in the short term with mansions, yachts, vactions, etc. I don't understand why so many people are fine with such huge gaps in income inequality. If you think that increasing the minimum wage is a problem, then we should instead make the rich pay much more taxes to help subsidize the poor.

No, they are not. Bill Gates is going to go to the grave with billions of dollars. Also they are going to spend it in the short term with mansions, yachts, vactions, etc. I don't understand why so many people are fine with such huge gaps in income inequality. If you think that increasing the minimum wage is a problem, then we should instead make the rich pay much more taxes to help subsidize the poor.

Thanks for your post, you make some interesting points.

Per capita you could indeed say that on average, the GDP per capita is one of the highest in the world, but that's just an average. In terms of distribution of it, it's also one of the worst. And it doesn't seem to improve. This is what I mean when I say the US should be able to do better, the sophisticated and highly developed country that it is.

Diversity is good, inequality isn't.

Minimum wages are imho about the minimum standard of living that a civilized society deems acceptable. Of course it acts as a barrier of entry, but it's a barrier that any half decent country is able and willing to overcome. If a business in a wealthy and successful country can't even pay a (low-skilled) work force enough for an acceptable standard of living, then that business fails for good reasons.

Some even argue in favour of lowering minimum wages or even taking them away altogether, but that is just accepting the status quo and will just widen inequality, with all bad consequences that will bring. The poor will find it more difficult to get well educated, and become more likely to stay unskilled. There are only so many burgers that need flipping.

Good to hear you worked hard and managed to do well, but please don't make assumptions about me. I'm also not telling you that people in the US have very little opportunity, because that wouldn't be true of course. But I'm sure there's room for improvement in some areas.

I'm not saying it'd be easy for a country like the US to lower the inequality of wealth there, but it should be a lofty goal to have imho.

So the implication is that the rich are greatly productive and the poor are not very productive? (That is what you are saying when you say average GDP per capita doesn't reflect the distribution well.) If that is the case how can one argue for higher wages when the poor are not earning these wages with their low productivity? Businesses are there to remain profitable.

If the net effect are that the poor are worst off, why is a minimum wage law justified and good? I would rather have a job at $7/hr than no job at all. I can't get myself skilled with 0 income and no job, while I can with $7/hr and job experience.

My point wasn't that diversity and inequality were good or bad, just that a more diverse population doing more diverse jobs, and living in more diverse areas, with more diverse economic situations will have more unequal income distributions. That is why the U.S has higher inequality. Not someabsence of legislation.

Maybe we should clearly define what we mean by "productive" because I have the feeling we're talking about slightly different things here.

I referenced your link that was about GDP per capita, which to my understanding is a purely monetary value referring to spending power per person. It's about *monetary* activity, not how much they *do* so to speak.

So in that sense, yes, the rich 'produce' much more in terms of GDP per capita: The top 10% in the US make for about 80% of total economic activity, and most of that is in the top 1%.

And therin lies the crux if what I meant to say: While the relatively low-paid workforce are very important for the economy, the benefits of their efforts in terms of money are mostly reaped by the rich.

You make a good point about "$7 an hour is better than nothing". As a worker with ambition sometimes you've got to invest in working experience to land a better position. For you it turned out well, which is great! You're obviously dedicated and talented enough to make your talents be properly rewarded.

 But how about $5 an hour? Or $2? $1 is still better than nothing, right? Take away minimum wage, and that's where it will be going. Burgers will still be flipped, but your car might be stolen while you're eating, maybe with you in it. And most of all, they won't be buying your well paid product because they won't have the money!

All those people making and serving meals, delivering packages, cleaning toilets, picking fruit, etc, etc,  they are all needed to make the economy work. They are very productive, but not in terms of "GDP per capita".

When you ask "why is minimum wage law justified and good?", like I said before, it's good because it puts a number on what you as a part of a civilized society deem acceptable as a minimum standard of living. It's a benchmark.

Maybe we should clearly define what we mean by "productive" because I have the feeling we're talking about slightly different things here.

I referenced your link that was about GDP per capita, which to my understanding is a purely monetary value referring to spending power per person. It's about *monetary* activity, not how much they *do* so to speak.

So in that sense, yes, the rich 'produce' much more in terms of GDP per capita: The top 10% in the US make for about 80% of total economic activity, and most of that is in the top 1%.

And therin lies the crux if what I meant to say: While the relatively low-paid workforce are very important for the economy, the benefits of their efforts in terms of money are mostly reaped by the rich.

You make a good point about "$7 an hour is better than nothing". As a worker with ambition sometimes you've got to invest in working experience to land a better position. For you it turned out well, which is great! You're obviously dedicated and talented enough to make your talents be properly rewarded.

 But how about $5 an hour? Or $2? $1 is still better than nothing, right? Take away minimum wage, and that's where it will be going. Burgers will still be flipped, but your car might be stolen while you're eating, maybe with you in it. And most of all, they won't be buying your well paid product because they won't have the money!

All those people making and serving meals, delivering packages, cleaning toilets, picking fruit, etc, etc,  they are all needed to make the economy work. They are very productive, but not in terms of "GDP per capita".

When you ask "why is minimum wage law justified and good?", like I said before, it's good because it puts a number on what you as a part of a civilized society deem acceptable as a minimum standard of living. It's a benchmark.