Posted on 07/18/2006 4:26:26 PM PDT by Graybeard58
Finally... a chance for me to agree with the DU crowd.
Oh... and did I mention that "profit" (where there IS any, after 'living wages') go to pensions? Such as the pensions of public sector workers?
See how Unions, for example, are OPPOSED to a profits tax on gas & oil companies:
http://www.windfallprofitstax.org
Hmmm. Investors who earn profit - are ordinary people?
What are the odds??...
Under todays rules your mom would probably get arrested.
My grandpa once told me that when he was 6 or 7 years old his father would send him to the local saloon to bring home a bucket of beer.
Remember the shockwaves sent around the country when cigarettes went to 35 cents a pack?
I think I just saw that in Angels with Dirty Faces.
And gasoline hit 30 - 40 cents a gallon.
I and many of my friends swore we would quit smoking if cigs ever hit $1 per pack.
My grandfather also drove a horse drawn hearse when he was a teenager. Around the year 1900.
However, I suppose there's no federal anti-discrimination laws applicable to this situation (wages calculated and then mandated by over/under a certain store's income).
I don't know what legal remedies the retailers have. Are there any laws at all to protect American businesses from mandatory price-setting and thuggish extortion as practiced by big-city union-controlled councils and boards?
There seems to be a reason the big boxes haven't fought this all the way to the Supreme Court on one constitutional principle or another.
Wonder why not.
Do they prefer to cut and run?
Leni
"All it REALLY does is increase unemployment because business that have jobs where the productivity is lower than the "living wage" will no longer hire."
For several years we had no minimum wage (I'm assuming that's what is meant by "living wage", correct me if I'm wrong)here in the UK before the current government(labour) was elected. Not sure what it is (about $9-10) but there do not appear to be any negative effects on the economy. Something to do with the fact that people earning minimum wage need to spend all the money they earned. Read it on here by someone hitherto sceptical about minimum wage so for me at least has some credibility.
We're not talking about some radical new theory here....you simply cannot legislate the value of labor without negatively effecting the economy....period. No-one disagrees with that....no one. There is no ongoing debate... it's simply a fact, like gravity.
You seem to be politely describing you personal view, and I can accept that, but to me it sounds like someone trying to explain to Newton that sometimes the apple falls up.
If you fix the price of Apples you change the market for them. If it's too low you get shortages, if it's too high, they rot on the docks. Labor is the same thing. If you "fix the price" at too high a level, the worker will rot on the docks... or "become unemployed."
That's it. There is no reasonable way to say "yes but" to this fact. When you set a minimum value for labor (and call it a living wage or whatever) you will no longer employ people who's productivity does not exceed that value.
There is one other option however, you could be forcing employers to hire illegal immigrants and illegally pay them below the "living wage" level. Illegals don't complain when you pay them half the "living wage" and usually accept it happily. Of course now you've gone and created an entire underground economy which is no longer subject to your laws.
But all in, I'd still call that a negative effect.
I understand basic economics so of course see your argument; I'm just telling you what I saw on here. IMO it depends on how far the limits are set by the government. If minimum wage was set at say:£50 ($90)plus social security etc, then I have little doubt that the underground activity that you describe would occur. Of course, it wouldn't get to that as such a rate would cause a national outcry and crisis if the government persisted.
IMO the current rate should not be forcing employers to employ illegal immigrants; as far as I'm concerned if I couldn't obtain an acceptable rate of return if I paid the current minimum wage, I shouldn't be in business!
IMHO, this looks like something that could very easily be a legitimate interstate commerce issue, under the original intent of the commerce clause. Too bad Congress and the USSC have forgotten what that was.
Rest assured, the fact that you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't happening. If it's a "natural minimum" like you seem to describe, then the government can remove the legislation, and the wage wont drop. Anything else is causing higher unemployment and increased illegal activity.
It is insane to mandate such things, the market will take care of it. For example, here in California, McDonald's is offering NEW HIRES $10/hr for full time employees after their 90 day training period. They also get benefits. Raising the minimum will only increase the cost of part time employees.
However, what most people fail to realize it that a good majority of big time union wages are based on the minimum wage. Thus, a raise in the minimum wage also increases union salaries for trained/skilled workers. This is why the unions, and therefore the politicians they finance, are on board with all of the nonsense.
It's not just going to increase the cost of your burger. It will increase the cost of your car, your groceries, new construction, and health care, just to name a few.
It will also increase your taxes to pay for the people who are put out of work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.