Julie Borowski and a poll: Should we repeal fed minimum wage laws?

[Occam's Banana]

I know plenty of young people that would take those jobs, but they wouldn't be able to support themselves at all on those kinds of wages.

So how does pricing those jobs out of the market help those would otherwise have taken those jobs?

As for not being able to support themselves on "those kinds of wages" - why do you think that is?

(Hint: you are changing one thing and assuming everything else will stay the same - see the false dichotomy I describe below.)

I've never been on unemployment, but isn't there a time limit? Wouldn't my hypothetical guy eventually be forced off of it?

I don't know what the time limit is. Perhaps he would be forced off it. But how does that matter?

If anything, forcing employers to offer a minimum wage just makes things worse for people in his position.

How is the scenario you hypothesized improved by making it more likely that he'll end up making $0.00/hour rather than $5.00/hour?

Having lost his unemployment benefits at $8.00/hour, how is forcibly preventing him from taking a job at $5.00/hour going to do him any favors?

I don't understand your hostility here.

No hostility was intended. The quote I offered, while admittedly somewhat snarky, is what your position essentially amounts to.

Although you might wish to word things differently, the practical (as opposed to rhetorical) difference would be nil.

That is what happens when you trade principles of individual liberty (economic or otherwise) in exchange for the vague comfort of collectivized platitudes such as the "greater good".

Hiring a few people at a livable wage vs hiring a bunch of people at an unlivable wage. Which is the greater good? I would say the first scenario.

You are indulging a false dichotomy. Whatever would be a "livable wage" under a minimum wage regime will be quite different from what would be a "livable wage" when there is no minimum wage at all.

When there is no minimum wage, employers will be able to hire more people. More employed people means less people receiving unemployment benefits.

Less people receiving unemployment benefits leaves more money in the hands of both employers and employees. (After all, where does the money for unemployment checks comes from?)

Leaving more money in the hand of employees means their wages have become more "livable".

Futhermore, labor is a cost of production. When cost of labor goes down, cost of production goes down.

When cost of production goes down, prices go down. When prices go down, wages become more "livable" (without even having to change).

And so on and on and on ...

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Quite honestly, of all the myriad things the fedgov does to discourage hiring and encourage exporting jobs, the minimum wage is probably the least destructive. And, it's probably the most popular. If I were picking the battles, this would be way, way down the list.

This is true. It can also be used to help explain an expanding fiat money supply.

And I'm completely against minimum wage laws anywhere.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

In a more libertarian society what Julie said about the minimum wage would make a lot of sense.....but don't forget that we don't live in a libertarian society.

Damn straight.

Hard-core libertarians of all varieties need to make a distinction between theory and reality. If we only pursue the issues that the establishment agrees with us on, we are nothing but useful idiots to them. The trap here is obvious: "we believe in A, but only if B, C and D also occur". The establishment then jumps up and says "See, even the smart people want us to do A". Time and again this is the net result. We never get B, C, or D, which were supposed to be prerequisites, but we sure as hell get A, with full support from the cronies at the top. And usually the A issue in isolation makes B, C and D much worse.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I have a serious question about this because I really don't know.

If min wage laws were repealed, what's to stop companies from hiring people at $5.00/hr? And then people who have been out of work for a year takes that job, gets off of unemployment (in which he was making the equivalent of $8.00/hr). So then he loses his car and house and becomes homeless. Then he goes to federal housing, which costs the tax payer more than his unemployment. Then we have a new housing crises. See where I'm going with this? What's to stop something like this from happening?

Or what's to stop places like McDonalds from lowering their pay down a dollar or two? It's desperate times, so people obviously won't quit. It just seems like it would totally fuck up everything.

It would... for a while, but that's inevitable. The bubble we are inflating is bound to burst at some point, and what you just described is one facet of what's going to happen when it does. Eventually, however, the market will adjust to the new lack of regulations and businesses will pay their employees whatever gives them the best and most productive workers that can increase their ouput and their profits. Now, if someone was earning $8/hour doing nothing, why would he/she work for $5/hour at McDonald's? McDonald's has to give people an incentive to work or else nobody will want to work there. So, if we get rid of the minimum wage laws, the companies will pay their employees whatever they and the employees agree upon. What is so bad about that?

To be honest, though, it really sounds like you don't quite understand the same liberty you are advocating. How have you gone this deep into the liberty movement without understanding the basic free market principles that keep the economy going? Voluntary interaction can and will provide just as much incentive to hire and work for a reasonable price as government force would, and even more. All the government is doing is narrowing the range of acceptable human behavior to the point where nobody can get anything done because the government won't allow people to make a voluntary agreement. By raising floors and lowering ceilings, we will all eventually be crushed because we won't be able to do any business or make any money because the government has made it impossible for normal business transactions to be profitable enough for anyone to be motivated to do them. If we don't face the hardship that is sure to come, then it will only prolong the suffering.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I know plenty of young people that would take those jobs, but they wouldn't be able to support themselves at all on those kinds of wages.

Then they would go work somewhere else that paid more. The competition, then, would force McDonald's to raise their wages to a point where people actually want to work there so that they didn't keep losing workers who weren't satisfied with the wages.

I've never been on unemployment, but isn't there a time limit? Wouldn't my hypothetical guy eventually be forced off of it?

It doesn't really matter. The point you have described where someone makes $8.00 doing nothing is a better option than working for $5/hour. If companies really need workers, then they'll raise their wages to $8.00/hr so people are actually satisfied working there and can live on that wage. If a company hires someone for a very low wage, they won't work hard to keep their job, and they will probably be hired by a different company that was willing to pay more for their labor. McDonald's then, can't keep operating by paying its workers only $5/hour so they must raise their wages to something that's acceptable.

I don't understand your hostility here.

Hiring a few people at a livable wage vs hiring a bunch of people at an unlivable wage. Which is the greater good? I would say the first scenario.

It's a false dilemma. The greater good is allowing the companies and the workers to hash out a solution in which they will work hard for the company in return for a wage they can live off of. The government is only making it harder for those people to reach an agreement so that means more people are forced out on the streets because a voluntary solution has been made impossible.

 

[Seraphim]

Min. wage = permanent underclass of unemployed (dependent on welfare) as their labor and task value is legally priced out. Welfare requires taxes from the productive who then have less to use to innovate/employ/give raises. More unemployed = more welfare. More welfare = more theft. Cycle continues.