political question of the day
Are all libertarians jerks? Or just esr (and most of the other ones I've talked with)? Or am I possibly overreacting?
The short version is here, the slightly shortened but still rather long version of the prologue/context is here, and the full dialogue is here if you're really desperately trying to unload some spare time ( Read more... )
The short version is here, the slightly shortened but still rather long version of the prologue/context is here, and the full dialogue is here if you're really desperately trying to unload some spare time ( Read more... )
W: "aren't mortgages and wage-slavery driven by free market forces? Isn't government regulation pretty much the main thing preventing them from being far worse?"
M: "if a company has $X amount of money to spend, they can either hire fewer workers and pay them more, or hire more workers and pay them less. When there's a minimum wage, companies are forced into the former option - and thus fewer people have jobs..."
1. This argument seems compelling on the face of it, but my understanding is that no link has been demonstrated between raised minimum wages and reduced employment. It seems obvious that there would have to be if it were raised high enough, but apparently we've never gone high enough to see this effect.
2. That said, I agree that minimum wage is often a clumsy instrument which may be doing some harm along with the good. If substantial harm can be demonstrated, I would support looking at alternative plans, e.g. tying minimum wage to some function of company profit per employee, rather than the current one-size-fits-all rule.
I also support the idea of re-examining minimum wage in general -- we need some data and illustrative anecdotes: who has it conclusively helped? Who has it conclusively harmed? What are the trade-offs at different dollar levels?
3. That said... you're arguing that wage-slavery is a side-effect of government regulation (i.e. minimum wage), but I'm not seeing the connection. How would giving people the option of earning even less make them less wage-enslaved?
4. I'd also support re-examining child labor laws. I think we now have the infrastructure -- thanks to government regulations, mind you -- to prevent the sort of abuse (kids working in dangerous conditions) that led to those laws in the first place.
5. That said, the example of people being sorry they had shut down the abusive underpaying factory is another one of those arguments that sound good on the surface. If we allow such factories to operate, then the ones that aren't abusive cannot compete -- so we're hurting the "good" factories (and their employees) by not clamping down on the "bad" ones.
You could argue that shutting down one factory in the name of progress is callous "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" reasoning (the end justifies the means); I'm inclined to agree -- but I still can't support the existence of such factories.
Did the factory shut down because they truly couldn't afford to pay more, or because they were being jerks? If they truly couldn't afford to pay more, why couldn't they do so when other factories could? What, if any, was the extenuating circumstance? If people were so sorry to see the factory go, why did they work so strenuously to close it down? Details would be helpful here; context is often the larger part of the story.
Reply
Leave a comment