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

[erowe1]

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

OK, right it goes up incrementally to $7.25 by 2009.

 

[Razmear]

Voted for the Patriot act. If the minimum wage hit John Edwards wet dream of $9 an hour then I might change my vote, but at $5.85 ($5.51 in Canadian $'s) it's a non-issue right now.

eb

 

[erowe1]

So because some cheap employer doesn't want to pay a living wage I should have to pay more taxes?

Who said anything about a cheap employer? Employers can't be forced to pay people more than their labor is worth. If an employer gets $5 in revenue for every hour that an employ works, then that employee will be able to demand a rate that, when added to other employment costs, comes to just under $5/hr. Passing a law that forces that person to offer their labor for a minimum amount of a living wage of at least $7/hr (or more as most proponents would have it) forces them out of their job. If you're concerned about the amount it would cost the taxpayer in various forms of government assistance, then it would cost more when the person is unemployed than when they're employed at below a living wage. And the ethical issue remains the same. The minimum wage laws take away that person's freedom.

 

[erowe1]

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

It's not an odd point. For every 1 person whose phone is being tapped for suspicion of terrorism, there are hundreds of people working for minimum wage with their ability to offer their labor at a lower rate taken away from them by force. the fact that certain options still do remain for them is not necessarily a consolation for the fact that this important and valuable option does not.

 

[LibertyOfOne]

Most of the jobs in my area that require no skill start above the minimum wage at around 8 dollars. The market decides the wage better than the government ever could. You can't offer whatever price you want and expect people to apply for the job when others pay more.

 

[erowe1]

Most of the jobs in my area that require no skill start above the minimum wage at around 8 dollars. The market decides the wage better than the government ever could. You can't offer whatever price you want and expect people to apply for the job when others pay more.

Exactly. But this is an argument for why the minimum wage is a bad thing. Which way did you vote?

 

[LibertyOfOne]

Patriot Act

 

[murrayrothbard]

For whoever said minimum wage is not a "liberty issue".

A third party using aggressive force in order to halt a voluntary transaction between two individuals is most clearly an attack on liberty.

Also, you all should understand that if you are getting paid $10/hr it costs your employer far more p/hr to hire you. You're real wage is probably closer to $20 if you figure in all the government mandates and taxes your employer must pay in order to hire you. So $10/hr wage earner is going to have to provide something like $20/hr worth of service in order for it to be profitable for the employer to hire them.

All those things like workman's comp, social security, health insurance come out of your gross wages.

 

[erowe1]

Amen, Rothbard.
And thinking of the charge that an employer is greedy who wants to be able to employ people who offer their labor at below what the minimum wage is, I'm glad they brought that up. As your comment also implies, the minimum wage not only takes freedom away from employees, but also those employers, regardless of their motivations.

 

[freelance]

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 agree, and that's the reason that I chose Patriot Act. That's when we should have realized that it was all over, but we were still in our stupor, or at least I was.

But there was an even bigger power grab announced today:

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/White_House_says_Bush_plans_administrative_1031.html

Talk about unconstitutional. I hope someone YouTubed Countdown tonight. Otherwise, you can catch it on the second airing in the middle of the night.

 

[jmdrake]

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.

Yes they ARE related issues! YOU made the relationship! Think about it. The reason that YOU say your sister can afford to take a lower wage is partly because of government assistance. So we're talking about subsidized labor. You want to make some "free market liberty" argument based on a scenario that by your own admission is already outside of the free market. Whenever subsidies are involved there are winners and losers. The person who did not get the subsidy is the one loosing out. And as for your 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?" comment, how do you know that? Can you get into the mind of every single voter in the country that supports a minimum wage? Certainly calls for minimum wage increases HAVE been tied to welfare reform in the past.

Think of it another way. Let's say if you were competing to sell shoes and so was I. But I got a government subsidy of 20 bucks for every shoe I sell. So then I cut my prices. Is that fair to you?

Finally, I'm not a mean spirited person and hope I don't come across that way. I'm not mad at your sister for getting a subsidy. But it really undercuts the libertarian argument you are attempting to make because of the way you've linked the two. Her being able to accept a lower wage because (according to you) she gets a subsidy means that the wages of someone ELSE could be lower than it otherwise would be. Further that other struggling person has to pay taxes in order to subsidize the wages of the person that's forcing their own wages down.

If you want to argue against the minimum wage based on some economic argument, fine. But if you want to argue it based on libertarian principles using a scenario where the libertarian principles are already being violated that just doesn't make good sense.

Finally, like I already said, there are a LOT of ways your sister could "earn" less than the minimum wage if that's what she really wanted to do. Even better there are charities that specialize in hiring the handicapped. Ever heard of Goodwill industries?

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[jmdrake]

For whoever said minimum wage is not a "liberty issue".

A third party using aggressive force in order to halt a voluntary transaction between two individuals is most clearly an attack on liberty.

Aggressive force? Give me a break! Sorry I haven't seen cops busting down anyone's door because they paid the babysitter $3.00 an hour.

Also, you all should understand that if you are getting paid $10/hr it costs your employer far more p/hr to hire you. You're real wage is probably closer to $20 if you figure in all the government mandates and taxes your employer must pay in order to hire you. So $10/hr wage earner is going to have to provide something like $20/hr worth of service in order for it to be profitable for the employer to hire them.

All those things like workman's comp, social security, health insurance come out of your gross wages.

Health insurance is not mandated by the government. Also, as I've pointed out, but you and others keep ignoring, there area plenty of legal ways to work less than minimum wage if that's what you REALLY want to do! Plus the minimum wage is currently NO WHERE NEAR $10.00 an hour. And I'm glad you mentioned social security taxes. The scenario brought up in this thread is one where the handicapped person can afford to be paid less than minimum wage due to government assistance. One form of such assistance is SSI (social security income). An attack on liberty is arguing that someone getting SSI should be able to drive down the wages of people PAYING taxes to fund SSI.

Really, this is weak as a liberty issue at best. It's an economic one.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[jmdrake]

Amen, Rothbard.
And thinking of the charge that an employer is greedy who wants to be able to employ people who offer their labor at below what the minimum wage is, I'm glad they brought that up. As your comment also implies, the minimum wage not only takes freedom away from employees, but also those employers, regardless of their motivations.

And the freedom of someone not to pay taxes to fund someone else's "freedom" to work for less than minimum wage is addressed how by your argument?

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[paulitics]

I'm for minimum wage. Sorry, but the argument of the market will take care of itself, and businesses will have to pay more for low skilled workers is BS.

If it wasn't illegal to pay below a minimum wage, there would be slave labor in this country tomorrow. Look at countries that don't have basic protection, and rights for workers, including children.

I agree with RP on 90% of everything, but I think it is immoral to pay someone 2.00 an hour, and make money off that employee.. And before you prejudge, I'm a business owner.

 

[Van Damme]

I'm for minimum wage. Sorry, but the argument of the market will take care of itself, and businesses will have to pay more for low skilled workers is BS.

If it wasn't illegal to pay below a minimum wage, there would be slave labor in this country tomorrow. Look at countries that don't have basic protection, and rights for workers, including children.

I agree with RP on 90% of everything, but I think it is immoral to pay someone 2.00 an hour, and make money off that employee.. And before you prejudge, I'm a business owner.

A minimum wage, helps some workers by making other workers unemployed. Its simple economics: http://www.swlearning.com/economics/policy_debates/min1.gif
(This is a simple labor market diagram where the supply curve represents the supply of labor and the demand curve represents the demand for labor.)

The minimum wage causes a transfer of wealth from firms to workers, but in the process of increasing the wage, lowers the amount of labor demanded by firms, thus causing unemployment. So, the workers that are able to hold on to their jobs benefit immensely, while other workers are unemployed, receiving no benefits. There is also a social cost to the minimum wage ( the deadweight loss) because workers want to work more at the minimum wage, but firms do not want to pay the workers to work more at this high of a wage.

What is interesting is that in Michigan, where I live, they recently increased the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.15 an hour simple because it was believed that the previous minimum wage was no longer binding, ie. the minimum wage was less than the market wage so it had absolutely no effect on the market wage. This was baffling to me because the purpose of the minimum wage is raise the market wage to a level high enough to support an acceptable standard of living. In my state it seems like they raised the minimum wage simply because the market wage rose above the previous minimum wage, not because they thought the market wage was necessarily dangerously low.

 

[werdd]

patriot act is worse, it infringes upon our civil liberties.

I will take the unpopular position of saying the minimum wage is good, with the problem we got with illegal immigration. Of course people offer subprime wages anyway, but atleast they have to do so with some heat on their back's. We're we to end illegal immigration, build the fence and enforce our borders, i would be all for disbanding the minimum wage and letting the free market decide our wages.

 

[paulitics]

A minimum wage, helps some workers by making other workers unemployed. Its simple economics: .[/QUOTE] that is one theory perha...a deciding issue for me. The patriot act is.

 

[kylejack]

that is one theory perhaps, but not gospel truth. If wages are so low, workers are dissuaded to actually work. Instead of flipping burgers for 5.00, they end up in the welfare lines because they can actually fare better getting a handout. Why work, if the wage is barely enough to put gas in the tank?

So get rid of the welfare...which shouldn't exist in the first place. Taking money from me to fund someone else's life against my will is unethical.

This is where I break with libertarians. But, it is such a small issue compared to the erosion of civil liberties, that I am still 90% libertarian. Its not a deciding issue for me. The patriot act is.

Keeping the product of your labor is certainly a civil liberty, and people who want to take that away from you on threat of imprisonment ought to be criminals.

 

[Ozwest]

Is 5.25 the minimun wage? That's criminal!

 

[kylejack]

Is 5.25 the minimun wage? That's criminal!

You're right, it is criminal! Its about $5.25 too high!