How can minimum wage be eliminated?

[Brian4Liberty]

But there would be other workers without jobs, some of whom would be willing to offer their labor for less. And even if they are less productive than that worker currently employed for minimum wage, they might offer their labor for a low enough price that they would actually produce more per dollar paid them for that employer than the minimum wage worker does. Also, since they're willing to work for less, that means they are more desperate for the job.

How low can you go in paying a worker? Are you advocating taking advantage of desperate people? Some people use an-cap or libertarian philosophy simply as justification for taking advantage of people.

 

[erowe1]

How low can you go in paying a worker?

There should be no limit to how low. In fact, in the law as it now exists, many workers work for $0/hour. They are called volunteers. What they do is perfectly legal, but if they were to get a raise to be paid $1/hour to pay for their gas, suddenly they would be law breakers. In fact, if I want to work for you, and I want to pay you money for the privilege of doing it, effectively working for a wage below zero, nobody has the right to tell me I can't.

Are you advocating taking advantage of desperate people?

Of course I advocate that! The only way I could not advocate it would be if I hated desperate people and wanted them to be remain in their desperate situations. Any time two people make an economic arrangement where they each give the other something in exchange for something else, whether that be in the form of a job or the purchase of something at the grocery, both parties are taking advantage of one another. For many desperate people, the best way out of their desperate situation is to offer their labor for what you might consider a very low wage, hoping that some employer will take advantage of their desperation by hiring them. This is always a good thing for both parties involved.

Here are some other examples of where self-righteous politicians have prevented desperate people from improving their lots by enacting laws that prevent those desperate people from doing the very things they need to do:
banning the sale of organs, banning price gouging during natural disasters, and banning child labor. I'm sure I could go on.

Incidentally, I'm not an an-cap. I'm just a lover of freedom and hater of tyranny, who thinks we'd be a lot better off if the people who took oaths to uphold the Constitution would do so. And I'm pretty sure the views I've expressed are the standard Austrian economic views, and the views that Ron Paul also holds.

 

[Bman]

I am an example of this. Unemployed. Live with parents. Sadly it is something that is becoming more and more popular. A job is a job. I am almost to the point where Id take that.

Two words. Self Employment. There has to be something you can do that is worth more than minimum wage.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Of course I advocate that! The only way I could not advocate it would be if I hated desperate people and wanted them to be remain in their desperate situations. Any time two people make an economic arrangement where they each give the other something in exchange for something else, whether that be in the form of a job or the purchase of something at the grocery, both parties are taking advantage of one another. For many desperate people, the best way out of their desperate situation is to offer their labor for what you might consider a very low wage, hoping that some employer will take advantage of their desperation by hiring them. This is always a good thing for both parties involved.

So you would not pay someone a "reasonable" rate if you could get away with it? Certainly giving a job to someone is a good thing. Taking advantage is not. Maybe "taking advantage" is too vague. Do you advocate screwing people over?

Both parties do not always automatically benefit from any and all arrangements. You could consent to be a slave (and many people have in the past). In return, you (and your progeny) will be housed and fed. If you are desperate, you should be grateful for that "generosity".

And I'm pretty sure the views I've expressed are the standard Austrian economic views, and the views that Ron Paul also holds.

I bet Ron Paul would not advocate taking advantage of people.

 

[erowe1]

So you would not pay someone a "reasonable" rate if you could get away with it? Certainly giving a job to someone is a good thing. Taking advantage is not. Maybe "taking advantage" is too vague. Do you advocate screwing people over?

Both parties do not always automatically benefit from any and all arrangements. You could consent to be a slave (and many people have in the past). In return, you (and your progeny) will be housed and fed. If you are desperate, you should be grateful for that "generosity".



I bet Ron Paul would not advocate taking advantage of people.

As far as the law is concerned the relevant question to this discussion is not what people should do in their free exchanges with one another, but what government should or shouldn't do to interfere in those free exchanges. Minimum wage laws and other regulations are ways of the government interfering, as are all forms of corporate welfare. All of those are wrong. I'm reasonably sure that I'm on safe ground in saying that RP is with me on all this.

I don't advocate screwing people over. I do advocate paying them a reasonable wage. I also advocate--and this is the kicker--that nobody has any right to decide what a reasonable wage is for someone and whether they are being screwed over, except that person. When that person agrees to offer their labor for a given price, they have determined for themselves that they are better off by getting that wage than by not getting it. And their opinion is better than anyone else's in the world on that particular question. Who are you or anyone else to tell them they're wrong about that and that they, therefore, shouldn't have the right to offer their labor at a rate below the one you set for them?

If I am willing to hire someone to work for me, so long as I can pay them only $1/hour, and someone else out there is in desperate need of money and willing to offer their labor to me at that rate, so that we both then freely agree to that arrangement, then we will have both made one another better off according to the only definitions of "better off" that count, our very own. We have done no wrong. You, on the other hand, if you, along with others like you, using your vote and any other means you have of influencing the government, impel that government to prevent me and that desperate person from making that arrangement, are doing something purely evil and unjustifiable.

 

[teacherone]

So you would not pay someone a "reasonable" rate if you could get away with it? Certainly giving a job to someone is a good thing. Taking advantage is not. Maybe "taking advantage" is too vague. Do you advocate screwing people over?

Both parties do not always automatically benefit from any and all arrangements. You could consent to be a slave (and many people have in the past). In return, you (and your progeny) will be housed and fed. If you are desperate, you should be grateful for that "generosity".



I bet Ron Paul would not advocate taking advantage of people.

Ummm...unless someone is a slave, ie forced and coerced into a labor agreement, then that agreement is equitable between both parties. No one would voluntarily take a job that was screwing them over. He only goes to work if he benefits from his labor.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Ummm...unless someone is a slave, ie forced and coerced into a labor agreement, then that agreement is equitable between both parties. No one would voluntarily take a job that was screwing them over. He only goes to work if he benefits from his labor.

I know plenty of people who are getting screwed over by their employers. When they have leverage, they use it!

We're going off track here, but in the real world, we are watching a real estate (and associated mortgage derivatives) collapse where everyone up and down the chain is saying "gee, these contracts weren't fair" or "I didn't understand" or "it's not my fault, they signed the contract". My point being that just because a contract exists does not mean that it is equitable. I don't have a solution, and I know government will make it worse.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I don't advocate screwing people over.

That's good. Some libertarians don't have such good intentions. Too often, those who profess libertarian ideals have other agendas. For example, here's a short lecture on markets and regulations:

YouTube - Roundtable Discussion With Bernard Madoff

You, on the other hand, if you, along with others like you, using your vote and any other means you have of influencing the government, impel that government to prevent me and that desperate person from making that arrangement, are doing something purely evil and unjustifiable.

The less government the better. My personal preference is for government to define crimes like fraud and theft, and enforce them. Nothing more.

 

[Objectivist]

YouTube - Milton Friedman on Minimum Wage
YouTube - Power of the Market - Minimum Wage

 

[Brian4Liberty]

YouTube - Milton Friedman on Minimum Wage

Good one. And as Uncle Milty says right at the beginning, there are two groups: "well-meaning sponsors" and "the special interests that use the well-meaning sponsors as front men". That applies to just about everything political...

 

[Objectivist]

Good one. And as Uncle Milty says right at the beginning, there are two groups: "well-meaning sponsors" and "the special interests that use the well-meaning sponsors as front men". That applies to just about everything political...

He speaks to the common man so the common man understands.