Maybe if that’s the case going back to Kansas which has a better cost of living is a better choice than trying to live in a city or state with the highest cost of living?
Not to deride your minimum wage tangent here, but there's something to be asked here. Why does California have a high cost of living? Why does Kansas have a low cost of living? I think when you ask the question of why cost of living is so vastly different from area to area you start to get a better picture of why we have a lot of problems addressing wages matching that cost of living.
It’s almost as if people pointed out that raising the minimum wage will result in higher costs for everything and thus raising the cost of living
This has been a national thing. I feel like you'd might have a point if this wasn't true literally everywhere. Even where I live in very rural Tennessee cost of living has gone up. Our county recently increased sales tax and property tax is likely to go up as well. Cost of goods like eggs have gone from 78¢ to $2.19 here from 2019 to today, with eggs at one point hitting $6.99 a dozen here.
So there is a relationship between minimum wage and cost of living but that's clearly not the case with California's minimum wage increase that goes into effect next month. Everything, everywhere is increasing in cost. Which goes back to what I was saying. When you start asking questions on why cost of living is different, you get a picture of bigger factors that drive national cost of goods and services. And you see that touched upon in the article.
“We suspect that low-wage workers’ high likelihood of living in three-earner (or more) households might be due largely to California’s high housing costs,” the legislative analyst’s office said.
Housing is a massive thing everywhere and housing is flying through the roof. The reasons for that are complex and it's absolutely a discussion, for perhaps elsewhere though (I cannot imagine that Lemmy comments are that great a place for such a trite diatribe). Minimum wage does indeed play a role but, and I could be reading your comment incorrectly, I believe that you are attributing a much larger weight to that factor than it deserves and forgoing the complexity of the issue by solely focusing on that sole reason.
I found nothing within the IEA's announcement that indicates a shortage of those three elements. Iron is like the fourth most abundant thing on the planet.
In fact, this story literally reports this whole thing all wrong. It's not that there's a shortage, it's that the demand for renewables is vastly larger than what we're mining for. Which "duh" we knew this already. The thing this report does is quantify it.
That said, the "human rights abuses" isn't the IEA report. That comes from the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC).
These aren't just limited to the renewable industry. Copper specifically, you've got a lot of it in your walls and in the device that you are reading this comment on. We have always had issues with copper and it's whack-a-mole for solutions to this. I'm not dismissing BHRRC's claim here, it's completely valid, but it's valid if we do or do not do renewables. Either way, we still have to tackle this problem. EVs or not.
And these are the usual suspects who routinely look the other way in human right's abuses. China, Mexico, Canada, and Switzerland this is the list of folks who drive a lot of the human rights abuses, it's how it has been for quite some time now. That's not to be dismissive to the other folks out there (because I know everyone is just biting to blame the United States somehow) but these four are usually getting their hand smacked. Now to be fair, it's really only China and Switzerland that usually does not care one way or the other. Canada and Mexico are just the folks the US convinced to take the fall for their particular appetite.
Third Congo war incoming. But yeah, seriously, imperialism might have officially ended after World War II, but western nations routinely do this kind of economic fuckening, because "hey at least they get to self-govern". It's what first world nations tell themselves to sleep better for what they do.
This really should have happened yesterday. But if they would do something today, that would actually be proactive about the situation. Of course, many first world nations when they see a problem respond with "come back when it's a catastrophe."
OVERALL This article is attempting to highlight that recycling is a very doable thing if governments actually invested in the infrastructure to do so and that if we actually recycled things, we could literally save ⅓ the overall cost for renewables. It's just long term economic sense to recycle. But of course, that's not short term economic sense. And so with shortages to meet demand on the horizon, new production is going to be demanded and that will in turn cause human rights violations.
They really worded the whole thing oddly and used the word shortage, like we're running out, when they meant shortage as in "we can't keep up without new production". They got the right idea here, I just maybe would have worded all of it a bit differently.