Which is worse: the minimum wage or the Patriot Act?

[erowe1]

By "which is worse" I basically mean, which is the more egregious offense against liberty. This includes a variety of factors that some people will weight with different values, including, which one impacts more people, which one does the most harm to the people it does impact, who the people are who are impacted, what potential there is for it to be used in the future to do more harm than it is now doing, etc.

For my part, it's no contest, the minimum wage (and I could have just as easily chosen any number of other leftist ideas in its place) is far worse than the Patriot Act. But I would concede that the Patriot Act has the potential to become more dangerous as the powers it grants to the executive branch may in the future be used for broader purposes than they are now being used.

But, since the minimum wage impacts millions of people right now, and the people it harms the most are the weakest members of society like the developmentally disabled, and its primary basis is simple greed on the parts of union bosses (with a secondary well-intentioned basis of people who misunderstand economics and think that the MW increases the salaries of the working poor), whereas the Patriot Act is at least based on a well-intentioned desire for security (misguided though it may be), and the people it impacts the most are (as far as I know) generally scumbags, it seems clear that the former is worse than the latter.

 

[erowe1]

I put up this poll because I have noticed that a lot of Paul supporters seem to believe that the Patriot Act marks some kind of threshold our country crossed in its departure from the values of the Constitution. As I see it, the Patriot Act is pretty minor compared to tons of things that have been going on for a long time. And I don't quite understand why people suddenly think a law allowing the feds to listen in on the phone calls of terrorists that most of us have never met is intolerable while a law preventing our mentally handicapped friends and loved ones from being able to ask for a lower hourly rate for their labor than the union bosses want them to is tolerable.

I notice that most so far disagree. Why?

 

[kylejack]

Minimum wage has more of a direct effect on me, but PATRIOT Act has more of a potentially devastating effect on me. It doesn't affect me much...but it COULD.

 

[erowe1]

Minimum wage has more of a direct effect on me, but PATRIOT Act has more of a potentially devastating effect on me. It doesn't affect me much...but it COULD.

That's a very fair point.

 

[DaronWestbrooke]

Having to live off a little over five bucks per hour is pretty bad.

 

[kylejack]

Having to live off a little over five bucks per hour is pretty bad.

Well, you could choose to get educated and learn more.

 

[jb4ronpaul]

The minimum wage is an affront to human dignity, it puts some people out of work making them dependent on others, to reward another person. This happens now, but the patriot act has more potential for being worse in the future.

 

[Hank]

They are both abominations.

The government has no right to regulate wages or spy on people.

 

[Tim724]

I disapprove of the minimum wage as much as the next guy, but techncially if it is low enough it doesn't have any impact.

Economic theory dictates that if the market price for all jobs is above minimum wage, then the minimum wage is doing absolutely nothing at all to wages or employment.

There is only an effect when the minimum wage is higher than what would be paid in a free market .

At $5.25, it has little effect in most areas. Does anyone know of any jobs that pay $5.25 (and presumable would pay a bit less if it weren't for the minimum wage law)?

Around me, even WalMart and fast food has to pay atleast $6 - $7 to get anyone to work for them.

Anyway, since minimum wage is so low right now, I voted for the Patriot Act.

 

[winston84]

whereas the Patriot Act is at least based on a well-intentioned desire for security (misguided though it may be), and the people it impacts the most are (as far as I know) generally scumbags, it seems clear that the former is worse than the latter.

I voted for the Patriot Act, because you can't change anything without being labeled some sort of dissenter and this is where the Patriot Act comes into play. I see the Patriot Act as an extension of the police state and there are politicians who pushed for it for less than altruistic reasons.

 

[freelance]

The Patriot Act codified the evil that's been growing. THAT is a huge problem.

There are few union bosses with any pull left, and with inflation beginning to spiral, the minimum wage isn't going to even mean anything in a few months.

 

[erowe1]

Having to live off a little over five bucks per hour is pretty bad.

What does the amount a person can live on have to do with anything? Not everyone needs to earn a living. Some people live with their parents. Some people get government assistance in addition to their low wages. Some people have savings to live on while they work their way up the ladder, or they can borrow money against the future earnings they will have when their wages are higher. At any rate, raising the minimum wage doesn't increase the wages any person can earn, it only forces the people whose labor is worth less than the MW out of their jobs. People whose labor is worth $10 and hour in profit to some company have the power to demand that rate regardless of any law.

I have a developmentally disabled sister who is dependent on my mother, and gets additional benefits from the government and could get more if she needed to. She needs a job as a way of keeping herself busy and knowing she's doing something productive. She doesn't need it to for the money. Furthermore, she very well might be able to earn more not less if it weren't for the minimum wage. As it is, she has a part-time job working about 16 hours a week and would love to work more hours. I have no doubt that she'd be able to if only she were permitted to offer her labor at a lower cost. In the past she lost a job because of being unable to work at a fast enough rate to justify her cost as an employee even at minimum wage. Why shouldn't she be allowed to offer her own labor at the rate that she thinks is best for her instead of the rate Ted Kennedy thinks is best?

 

[erowe1]

The Patriot Act codified the evil that's been growing. THAT is a huge problem.

So did the minimum wage. The question is which is the greater evil.

 

[jmdrake]

I put up this poll because I have noticed that a lot of Paul supporters seem to believe that the Patriot Act marks some kind of threshold our country crossed in its departure from the values of the Constitution. As I see it, the Patriot Act is pretty minor compared to tons of things that have been going on for a long time. And I don't quite understand why people suddenly think a law allowing the feds to listen in on the phone calls of terrorists that most of us have never met is intolerable while a law preventing our mentally handicapped friends and loved ones from being able to ask for a lower hourly rate for their labor than the union bosses want them to is tolerable.

I notice that most so far disagree. Why?

If a mentally handicapped person wants to work for less than minimum wage he can become a waiter or a farm worker. And have you taken a poll among mentally handicapped people to see if they want to work for less than minimum wage? Are you proposing repealing the minimum wage law only for mentally handicapped people? Sorry. Regardless of what I may or may not feel about the minimum wage law, comparing it to the government taking away freedoms spelled out in the bill of rights is just beyond the pale. I don't read congress shall pass no law setting a minimum wage in the constitution. Maybe it doesn't give them the power to do that either. But the Patriot Act undermined things the constitution explicitly said congress could not do. Argue the minimum wage along economic lines all you want to. But it pales as a liberty issue.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[erowe1]

I disapprove of the minimum wage as much as the next guy, but techncially if it is low enough it doesn't have any impact.

Economic theory dictates that if the market price for all jobs is above minimum wage, then the minimum wage is doing absolutely nothing at all to wages or employment.

There is only an effect when the minimum wage is higher than what would be paid in a free market .

At $5.25, it has little effect in most areas. Does anyone know of any jobs that pay $5.25 (and presumable would pay a bit less if it weren't for the minimum wage law)?

Around me, even WalMart and fast food has to pay atleast $6 - $7 to get anyone to work for them.

Anyway, since minimum wage is so low right now, I voted for the Patriot Act.

Wait a minute. I thought the MW was already raised to over $7.hr. Has that not gone through yet? I know many states have higher MWs than that, I could have sworn it happened this past year federally as well.

You're right about the MW having less and less impact as time goes on if it isn't raised. Unfortunately, it does keep getting raised. Furthermore, no matter how low it is, it's still too high. There are going to be people who, for reasons of their own, want to offer their labor for less.

Interestingly, I can do volunteer work or get an internship right now where I work for $0/hr. I may have various reasons for wanting to do that: experience, resume building, desire to help others, personal character building, etc. But I can't do the same work for the same reasons and get a raise to $1/hr.

 

[erowe1]

If a mentally handicapped person wants to work for less than minimum wage he can become a waiter or a farm worker. And have you taken a poll among mentally handicapped people to see if they want to work for less than minimum wage? Are you proposing repealing the minimum wage law only for mentally handicapped people? Sorry. Regardless of what I may or may not feel about the minimum wage law, comparing it to the government taking away freedoms spelled out in the bill of rights is just beyond the pale. I don't read congress shall pass no law setting a minimum wage in the constitution. Maybe it doesn't give them the power to do that either. But the Patriot Act undermined things the constitution explicitly said congress could not do. Argue the minimum wage along economic lines all you want to. But it pales as a liberty issue.

Regards,

John M. Drake

The Constitution protects property rights and one's labor is one's own property. And I don't need to take a poll of developmentally disabled people. If there is a single person, developmentally disabled or not (and there are many), then to take away their right to offer their labor at the price of their choosing is an offense against their liberty.

 

[jmdrake]

What does the amount a person can live on have to do with anything? Not everyone needs to earn a living. Some people live with their parents. Some people get government assistance in addition to their low wages.

Wait a second. You're using government assistance as an excuse for doing away with the minimum wage? Think about this. Government assistance! So because some cheap employer doesn't want to pay a living wage I should have to pay more taxes? That's your definition of "liberty"? Sorry, you've just TOTALLY undercut your whole argument. Part of Ron Paul's agenda is to CUT government assistance. I realize he's not crazy about the minimum wage either (something I disagree with him own) but he would NEVER use the fact that some people currently get government assistance as an excuse to allow wages of people at the bottom to fall.

I have a developmentally disabled sister who is dependent on my mother, and gets additional benefits from the government and could get more if she needed to. She needs a job as a way of keeping herself busy and knowing she's doing something productive. She doesn't need it to for the money. Furthermore, she very well might be able to earn more not less if it weren't for the minimum wage.

Ah. So this is a personal agenda. Ok. Look at it this way.

1) Your sister could volunteer. She could stay busy by helping people for FREE!
2) Your sister could answer help wanted ads in the paper. There's always someone who's looking for a baby sitter or house cleaning or whatever. Usually people are willing to pay MORE than the minimum wage for stuff like this.
3) She could start her own business.
4) She could get a telemarketing job. The home shopping network is always hiring people.
5) She could buy and sell on E-Bay.
6) She could search the classifieds for hot real estate deals and sell the information to local investors.
7) She could find some craft to make and sell it at a flea market.

There are a LOT of things that she could do to keep busy and even a lot of things she could do to keep busy and make some money without the minimum wage ever being a factor.

As it is, she has a part-time job working about 16 hours a week and would love to work more hours. I have no doubt that she'd be able to if only she were permitted to offer her labor at a lower cost. In the past she lost a job because of being unable to work at a fast enough rate to justify her cost as an employee even at minimum wage. Why shouldn't she be allowed to offer her own labor at the rate that she thinks is best for her instead of the rate Ted Kennedy thinks is best?

Take the time that you're wasting arguing this odd point and spend it helping her research selling homemade crafts on Ebay.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[jmdrake]

The Constitution protects property rights and one's labor is one's own property. And I don't need to take a poll of developmentally disabled people. If there is a single person, developmentally disabled or not (and there are many), then to take away their right to offer their labor at the price of their choosing is an offense against their liberty.

And if they're taking tax dollars so that they can offer their labor at a lower price that's an offense to common sense.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[jmdrake]

Wait a minute. I thought the MW was already raised to over $7.hr. Has that not gone through yet? I know many states have higher MWs than that, I could have sworn it happened this past year federally as well.

Nope. It's $5.85.

http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/wages/minimumwage.htm

And you're right. Many states have higher minimum wages than that. This really is a non issue.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[erowe1]

And if they're taking tax dollars so that they can offer their labor at a lower price that's an offense to common sense.

Regards,

John M. Drake

That's a separate issue and has no bearing on this question. The truth is, we have government assistance programs right now. We also have a minimum wage right now. The advocates for raising minimum wage always argue that we must raise it because people working at minimum wage can't live on that much. The same people invariably support continuing and increasing government assistance to the poor for the very same reason. They never say to themselves, "Wait a minute we have government assistance for people who don't earn enough, so why do we need to raise the minimum wage?" And they also never say to themselves, "We just raised the minimum wage to something high enough to live on so why don't we get rid of that government assistance program?"

But regardless of how society takes care of the mentally handicapped, whether by using government to force you to help them, or by allowing you to help them in your own ways freely, the ethical matter concerning the minimum wage doesn't change. The minimum wage is a infringement of their liberty under both circumstances.