Posted on 06/16/2002 6:31:16 AM PDT by SBeck
Gov.org has no business mandating a wage of any sort. They just create two more problems for the one they try to solve.
Huh?
It has been shown that a very small (almost imperceptible) percentage of American families live on minimum wage. The vast majority of minimum wage earners are school age or people entering the job market for the first time. One has to start somewhere. Additionally, the marketplace determines the value of the existing wages with the exception of the artifical floor created by the minimum wage laws.
Also, how does one define "subsistence wage." Is it enough to support oneself, a family, live-in lovers? Should everyone be able to afford a home, a car, a television, a VCR, cable, etc?
I started out at 16 earning minimum wage and slowly worked my way up. It gave me an opportunity to gain job experience and a sense of pride from earning my own paycheck. If I am unhappy with my present situation I can look elsewhere. If additional skills are required to move upward, I can do something to attain them. Of course this requires motivation. If I am guaranteed an unnaturaly high salary there is less incentive to advance myself through hard work and dedication.
A "living wage" is one of the standard mantras of the socialist left. it completely defies the basic laws of economics. If you price someting above equilibrium it results in loss of supply. In this case it is jobs. Additionally, it causes samll business owners to make decisions regarding levels of employment. If they can no longer afford to pay what some bureaucrat dictates, then they will either have fewer employees, or resort to the underground economy to meet their labor needs.
The only thing that government meddling in the laws of of supply and demand does in the long run is cause people to find a way around it. It creates additional costs to doing business in the marketplace but the market will always prevail. A simple example is the CAFE standards that removed the family station wagon from the American landscape. The market responded with the huge growth in ownership of SUVs. Would we be better off with people driving Vista-Cruisers or SUVs?
The governmet's role is not to ensure that everyone earns a specific wage, but that playing field is level. Discrimination is wrong and is also not economically viable. There are also laws that prohibit that practice. The governemts should not be taking the role in determining outcomes, only that the rules are consistent for everyone.
2002 P.C. Yup.
I would say that dismissing the concept of "living wages" as "socialism" is one of the mantras of the idiot right. I shouldn't say idiot. Its an inertia thing. Most right-wingers just haven't thought much about it or parrot what they hear smart guys like Milton Friedman say.
What defies the basic laws of economics is not paying a person enough to live. I tried to explain that once here with chickens. If you don't feed a chicken enough to live, it dies. Freepers still wouldn't listen. But, never giving up, I try again. The same would happen to American workers except that the gov't steps in and pick up the pieces. Forget "altruism" for the nonce, and forget simple human compassion and basic logic. Forget fairness and equity. Just think GREED. Why should the gov't(the taxpayers) pick up the difference between crap wages and what it costs for food, housing, and medical care? Make employers pay a floor wage that is livable and save your own pocketbook parsy the really logical freeper.
The best, fairest, and easiest way to jack up these sub-subsistence wages is to pass across the board wage hikes over the next few years. That way Wal-Mart isn't put at an competitive disavantage vis a vis K-Mart, and vice versa. parsy.
Now the scam on the American Dream program is it is not 'free' it comes out of the seller's pocket. At closing, the down payment, the 3K-5K, is deducted from the sellers money. So alarm bells go off, why do they need this grant money? For pencil heads to administer the program!!!
When I see these bleeding heart socialists digging in their pockets, whether its Larry "We don't pay enough in taxes" King to George 'taxpayer funded stadium so I can be a multi-millionaire' Bush, to provide low income housing assistance because of their own damn 'compassion' and not some government forced down a citizen's throat concept of compassion, I'll be interested in reading it and helping.
If you can't save up five grand, you don't have any business buying a home.
So if I use your analogy, we should all be kept like chickens. They have no control over their own lives except when to defecate. They are fed when the farmer decides and they die when the farmer decides. It sounds very much like a system that was in place in the former Soviet Union.
As far as people espousing the negative impacts of minimum wage laws (or any price floor for that matter) because some "smart guy like Milton Friedman said it" is not accurate. Sure, he believes in the free-market system, but I have yet to come across any introductory college econ textbook that does not take the same position. It is basic supply and demand. I would be happy to transcribe the wording verbatim from my college micro 101 textbook if you are still in doubt of the negative impact of minimum wage laws.
The only people that promote minimum wage laws are politicians on the far left, labor union leaders (from the far left by definition), Marxist (or socialist) college professors, and readers of the popular press (including evening news viewers) who have never taken an econ course in their life who are basically regurgitating what Ted Kennedy and his ilk are promoting.
Me. You forgot me. parsy
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.