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

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

  • The Minimum Wage is worse

    Votes: 7 5.3%
  • The Patriot Act is worse

    Votes: 99 75.6%
  • They are both equally bad

    Votes: 25 19.1%

  • Total voters
    131
I'm lucky in some ways, I live on an Island-continent the same size as America. Our population just passed 20 million recently. We have no geographical borders. My border in West Australia is the Indian Ocean... It's far from perfect here, but if Ron Paul loses, you can all stay at my place.
 
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.

I was merely observing that we have government assistance of various forms right now. Right or wrong, it is the status quo. that assistance is there to provide things for people who supposedly can't earn a living. As long as that is the case, there is no justification for having a minimum wage that exists for the same purpose on top of that. And as far as people making minimum wage are concerned, such as my sister, it is not necessarily the case that they will make less if they are permitted to offer their labor for a lower salary. Because of being able to work more hours they very well might earn more. So their cost to you the taxpayer could actually go down. Not allowing people to offer their labor at the price of their choosing is as much an infringement of their freedom as warrantless phone taps is, and it directly harms far more people.
 
Last edited:
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?

Markets account for minimum wage hikes and, through inflation, invalidate the raise. If we bet on the side of inflation correctly, we negate the effects of minimum wage.

You don't negate the Patriot Act without a lot of fighting.
 
Markets account for minimum wage hikes and, through inflation, invalidate the raise. If we bet on the side of inflation correctly, we negate the effects of minimum wage.

You don't negate the Patriot Act without a lot of fighting.

I like that explanation. I can't disagree that the Patriot Act can't be beat without explicit legislation, whereas the MW can be beat simply by ignoring it. Unfortunately, they keep going back to raise it. So the effective elimination of it via inflation will never happen until we can stop them from doing that.
 
I agree with Ron Paul on most everything, and the biggest determining factor in wage outcomes is supply and demand... As a wage earner your position is strong during times of economic growth and you can negotiate with your employer from a position of power. If the economy takes a down-turn you will be discarded and terminated without representation, particularly by corporations seeking bottom line outcomes.
 
Erowe1-Your point is very clear. You have expressed your dislike of Muslims in these forums before and you know damn well that the primary target of the Patriot Act was Muslims and so of course you want to belittle those who believe it is a violation of their liberties.
 
Markets account for minimum wage hikes and, through inflation, invalidate the raise. If we bet on the side of inflation correctly, we negate the effects of minimum wage.

You don't negate the Patriot Act without a lot of fighting.

Strict interpretation of the market according to who? Why 5.00 vs. 15.00? Please explain hmmm.
 
Erowe1-Your point is very clear. You have expressed your dislike of Muslims in these forums before and you know damn well that the primary target of the Patriot Act was Muslims and so of course you want to belittle those who believe it is a violation of their liberties.

I have never expressed dislike of Muslims. Please provide the quote from which you inferred that. Also, I never belittled anybody who thinks it violates their liberties. Throughout this thread I have agreed that it is a violation of liberties and been understanding of people who think it's even worse than the minimum wage.
 
Last edited:
Strict interpretation of the market according to who? Why 5.00 vs. 15.00? Please explain hmmm.

It's really simple. If more of the bottom rung have more money, they have more cash to spend. Thus, they increase the demand on goods initially. Overtime, however, employers will pass the costs along and increase prices on goods. So that initial money boost counts for nothing because society quickly adjusts to pass the costs along. They raise it again because they then think it's not enough, and market discounts again.

If you gave everyone in America a $5,000/yr raise, inflation would go up and negate it. The short-term impact would be noticed, but the market would shift to make that 5k not worth much at all.

What politicians don't realize though, is that other countries don't have minimum wages. Those countries then end up exporting goods to us because there then exists labor arbitrage for all non-location specific jobs. People here then lose jobs, and jobs go over seas and poor Americans get hurt.

Of course, the poor are often uneducated and think that money does in fact grow on trees. They vote democrat and hurt themselves, thinking they are screwing the rich. The rich simply analyze the flow of excess money, make bets on it, and get richer.
 
The Patriot Act is worse. I'd rather have minimum wage than keep The Patriot Act around. I don't know what kind of asshole would vote minimum wage lol I was going to vote both, but it's truth, The Patriot Act is dangerous, minimum wage is just....well, dumb lol
 
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.

From http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=1456

"The Minimum Wage: Good Intentions, Bad Results
By Roger Koopman

Roger Koopman operates a private employment service in Bozeman, Montana,

Ideas have consequences, Richard Weaver once wrote. They pace the course of human history—both good ideas and bad. And while intentions may be honorable, the passing of time has proven that, in the long term, you can’t get good results from bad ideas.

The minimum wage is a classic example of a good intention and a bad idea. The idea behind minimum wage legislation is that government, by simple decree, can increase the earning power of all marginal workers. Implicit in this idea is the notion that employment is an exploitive relationship and that business owners will never voluntarily raise the wages of their workers. Businesses, we are told, must be coerced into paying workers what they deserve, and only politicians know what this is.

Not only does this line of thinking run contrary to the most basic economic principles of a free society, but it is also patently illogical. If government could raise the real wages of millions of Americans by merely passing a law announcing that fact, then why stop at $3.35 per hour, or $4.65, or even $107 Isn’t $500 per hour more compassionate than $50? Absurd, you say, and I would agree. But the “logic” is perfectly consistent with the idea of a minimum wage, once you have accepted the premise that political decrees can raise wages.

What does make wages rise? It is most certainly not government edicts that simply rearrange and redistribute existing wealth. Wages rise in response to the creation of new wealth through greater productivity. The more that a society produces per capita, the more there is to distribute through the marketplace in the form of higher wages, better benefits, and lower prices.

The “bigger economic pie” concept is not complicated in the least, and yet it is a principle that seems to elude us time and again in matters of public policy. We know instinctively that government cannot create or produce anything. It regulates, confiscates, and consumes, all at the expense of the private economy. And yet we still believe that government can wave its magic wand with laws like the minimum wage, and we all will be better off.

Politicians engage in this deception to buy political favor from special interest groups. We keep falling for these political deceptions because our focus is on short-term personal gains rather than on the long-term consequences to the entire nation. We see the apparent benefit of having our own wages increased. But we don’t consider the nameless victims of the minimum wage hike who will lose their jobs because the government has priced them out of the labor market. (It is precisely because minimum wage laws eliminate low-skilled workers from competing in the job market that organized labor lobbies Congress for massive minimum wage hikes.)

Commenting on the minimum wage, economist Henry Hazlitt put it succinctly:

You cannot make a man worth a given amount by making it illegal for anyone to offer him less. You merely deprive him of the right to earn the amount that his abilities and situation would permit him to earn, while you deprive the community even of the moderate services that he is capable of rendering. In brief, for a low wage you substitute unemployment. You do harm all around, with no comparable compensation.[1]

The net loss to society that results from this sweeping act of “wrongful discharge” is staggering. Those losses include: (1) The loss of employment to the individual himself, (2) the shrinking of the economic pie by the loss of his productive contribution, (3) the financial loss to society in supporting him in his idleness (unemployment compensation, welfare, etc.), (4) the financial loss in funding useless job training programs and other government efforts to get him re-employed, and (5) the net loss to society in having consumer prices driven up to cover the higher labor costs, and the loss of market share to foreign competition that may occur.

The cruel irony of the minimum wage is that it harms most the very segments of our society that it is intended to help—the unskilled poor and the inexperienced young. The evidence to support this is overwhelming, and it is the black community that is the hardest hit. in the 1950s, black teenage unemployment was roughly that of white teens. Following years of steady increases in both the level and coverage of the Federal minimum wage, over 40 per cent of the nation’s black teenagers are now unemployed.

Just look at all the jobs that have been abolished by the minimum wage—good and worthwhile jobs for those who are taking their first step on the economic ladder. Movie ushers, gas station attendants, caddies, fruit pickers, dishwashers, fast food help, and a wide variety of other entry-level job opportunities have been either cut back or eliminated because the minimum wage has rendered them unaffordable. How tragic this is, when you consider the true value of these low-level jobs to young and unskilled workers.

Reflecting on his early years in a Philadelphia slum, black economist Walter Williams observed:

None of these jobs paid much, but then I wasn’t worth much. But the real value of early work experiences is much more important than the little change a kid can earn. You learn how to keep a job. You learn how to be prompt, respect and obey superiors, and develop good work habits and attitudes that can pay off in the future. Additionally, there is the self-respect and pride that comes from being financially semi-independent.[2]

If a young person is willing to wash cars for $2.50 an hour to gain work experience and self-esteem, is it the right of Congress to tell him he can’t do it? Is it, in fact, the right of any politician to make these kinds of economic choices for a free people?

Commenting again on the minimum wage, Williams makes this critical observation:

It is important to note that most people acquire work skills by working at “subnormal wages” which amounts to the same thing as paying to learn. For example, inexperienced doctors (interns), during their training, work at wages which are a tiny fraction of that of trained doctors. College students forego considerable amounts of money in the form of tuition and foregone income so that they may develop marketable skills. It is ironic, if not tragic, that low skilled youths from poor families are denied an opportunity to get a start in life. This is exactly what happens when a high minimum wage forbids low skilled workers to pay for job training in the form of a lower beginning wage.[3]

In a free society, people must have the right to offer their services in the marketplace for whatever price they choose, whether they are workers serving employers or businesses serving consumers. It is by this process that productivity, wage rates, and prosperity are maximized. Government has no more business objecting to a low wage rate for a menial job than it has objecting to a business that offers its services or products for a low price. Government intervention in these matters distorts economic decision-making, misallocates scarce resources, and destroys personal liberty.

If we are to remain a free people, we need to start trusting freedom, and jealously guard our right to make our own choices about our own lives. Repealing the minimum wage law would be an excellent place to start. "
 
Last edited:
Which would you rather have, an unnecessary root canal or a colonoscopy (without lube)?
 
I'm actually for the Minimum Wage, so I guess I'll have to go with "Patriot Act."
 
Back
Top