Rothbardian Girl
Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2010
- Messages
- 1,784
This is from a few days into my college microecon class:
A minimum-wage law may increase the price of the labor (that is, your wage), but it also reduces the quantity of labor demanded (so, firms will hire fewer workers). Therefore, you may enjoy higher pay, but this has a lot of "unintended consequences" as the OP mentioned.
1) Higher unemployment
2) The companies may pass the increased costs onto the consumers, so no real money is being saved
3) Probably (this is just conjecture on my part) insulates larger companies against competition, because they can afford to deal with increased costs of labor, whereas small businesses suffer
Now, you mentioned otherwise being forced to live and work in essentially sweatshop conditions. This should be a concern of many libertarians, but I find that it is often not sufficiently explained. The way to deal with that is alternative methods of employee organization. Things such as strikes and employee co-ops, as well as less of a reliance on the bureaucratic triangle mode of organization that is often found in larger companies can help improve workers' conditions. The typical right-libertarian response you will get is that "Sweatshops are a form of voluntary organization", which on a very technical level may be true, but honestly, if it comes down to that option and nothing else for a person looking for work, the human community has lost its way. There are better ways of organizing that don't involve state-enforced rules like a minimum wage.
The state protects and encourages patterns of inequality. Those handouts are meant as crutches for when the government breaks both your legs. How can an entity like the state that bombs people and steals your wealth via inflation be expected to protect you with measures such as the minimum wage and government benefits? Of course, there is no shame in taking them, because the state's nature makes it so that there really is not a whole lot of viable alternatives to taking its poison. If the choice is between starving and managing to survive somehow, most people are going to make the choice to survive. But these people can and should be focused on improving their lots in life by working to bring down the tyrant that keeps them down, not continuing to depend on aid. I can see how it would be a very difficult task, but it needs to be done.
If you want to read more on a typical left-libertarian critique of sweatshops, here's an excellent article on the subject: http://c4ss.org/content/8840
, the govt agencies would not have to snatch them , nobody is paying a $100 for a happy meal !!
