Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: reflecting
I see your point, but does not your view make objects of us all..... people are people and things are things.... it seems false to appease our conscience with a shrug and label the worker the same as the product. Again I say we do have a moral responsibility to those who work for us. And that responsibility is to pay them a living wage.....

Yes! In terms of business transactions, we are objects. That's the important thing, that business and personal relationships are different things, and must be. Business deals are negotiated based on the selfish interests of each party. One wants as much money as possible for the least work; the other wants as much work as possible for the least money. Somewhere in the middle, they each find a place that is acceptable, though not ideal, and a deal is made.

In personal relationships, selflessness and sacrifice are very important, even critical. But you can't run a business that way, or you'll be finished. If you selflessly give all your money away in business, then you're out of business. If you pay more than market value for your labor, then it puts your business in a position of being uncompetitive, since your prices must be higher to pay the higher wages. With your higher prices, you lose business. If the situation continues for too long, you're bankrupt, and can't employ anybody.

The employer's first priority has to be the continuation of the business. After all, it's his income too. He needs to put food on the table for his own family first. If the government, or union, is going to force him to pay more than the business can afford for his labor, it just might put him out of business. It will at least decrease the number of people he can afford to hire. So, while he might have been able to pay 50 people to work for him, now he can only afford to hire 40 at the higher wage.

What happens to the other 10? They have no job at all now, thanks to the higher minimum wage. They can't negotiate to be hired at a lower wage, even if they wanted to, because it would be illegal.

A higher minimum wage increases unemployment. It hurts employment precisely at the level of the "little guy", making it too expensive for employers to hire more of them.

67 posted on 07/28/2006 11:37:29 AM PDT by TChris (Banning DDT wasn't about birds. It was about power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]


To: TChris
The employer's first priority has to be the continuation of the business. After all, it's his income too. He needs to put food on the table for his own family first. If the government, or union, is going to force him to pay more than the business can afford for his labor, it just might put him out of business. It will at least decrease the number of people he can afford to hire. So, while he might have been able to pay 50 people to work for him, now he can only afford to hire 40 at the higher wage.

This assumes that there is very little or no profit in the business. Which in most cases is not true. I say the guy keeps all 50 and does without the third house on the beach.

72 posted on 07/28/2006 11:57:34 AM PDT by reflecting
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson