Disadvantages of Minimum Wage Laws

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,863
60,200
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
1. In 1938 the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) established a federal minimum wage law for all employees engaged in interstate commerce.($7.25 as of 2009) When Social Security and medial benefits are included, the wage must be considered to be over $10/ hour. This governmental intervention in the labor market makes it impossible to argue that there is a free market in this respect.

a. While legislative bodies have the power to order wage increases, they have not as of yet found a way to order commensurate increases in worker productivity that make the worker’s output worth the higher wage.

b. Further, while Congress can legislate the wage at which labor transactions occur, it cannot require that the transaction actually be made, and the worker hired.


2. Employers, of course, are free to make adjustments in their use of labor. Often said adjustments are at the expense of the workers who are most disadvantaged in terms of their marketable skills. They will lose their jobs, or not be hired in the first place.

a. The workers who suffer most are the most marginal, usually youths, and racial minorities, disproportionally represented among low-skilled workers.

b. Not only are the above made less employable by minimum wage laws, but they lose the opportunity to upgrade their skills via on-the-job training.


3. The weight of research by academic scholars concludes that unemployment among some segments of the work force is directly related to legal minimum wages, See K.R. Kearl, et al., “What Economists Think,” and Alston, Kearl, and Vaughn, “Is There Global Economic Consensus,” both in the ‘American Economic Review.’



4. Minimum wage laws actually lower the cost of discriminating against the racially less-preferred individuals. To understand, consider this nonracial example on the effects of such ‘price-setting.’

a. Consider filet mignon and chuck steak. For argument’s sake, and in reality, consumers prefer the former.

b. Now ask, then why does chuck steak sell at all? And, in fact, why is it that chuck steak outsells filet mignon?? It is less preferred…yet competes favorably with something more preferred??

c. The answer is in what economists call ‘compensating differences.’ In effect the chuck says to you: “I’m not as tender nor tasty, but not as expensive,either! I sell for $4/pound, and filet mignon sells for $9/pound.”

d. Chuck steak, in effect, offers to ‘pay’ you $5/pound for its ‘inferiority,’ a compensating difference.

e. What if filet mignon sellers wanted to raise their sales against the less-preferred competitor, but couldn’t get a law passed forbidding the sale of chuck, what should they aim to do?

f. Push for a law establishing a minimum steak-price, say, $9/pound for all steak.

g. Now…chuck steak says: I don’t look as nice, I’m not tender or tasty as filet mignon, and I sell for the same price….Buy me!

h. Prior to legislation, the cost of discriminating against chuck steak was $5/pound…Now?



5. Thus, any mandated minimum lowers the cost (encourages) indulging in racial preference, or increases the cost of training unskilled labor.

6. Now, if there are mandated minimums, employers will seek the more highly qualified candidate. Due to a number of socioeconomic reasons, white youths have higher levels of educational attainment and training.

7. It should be pointed out that minimum wage increases gives employers an economic incentive to make other changes: substitute machines for labor; change production techniques; relocate overseas; and eliminate certain jobs altogether.
See "Race & Economics," Walter E. Williams
 
Last edited:
Below is from a 2003 column by Thomas Sowell. Goes to your point rather well. As noted in the news recently and on a few threads around here, the new french president (Francoise Hollande) intends to raise the minimum wage in France. We'll see how it works out; I'm guessing not real well.

snippet:

Most studies of minimum wage laws in countries around the world show that fewer people are employed at artificially higher wage rates. Moreover, unemployment falls disproportionately on lower skilled workers, younger and inexperienced workers, and workers from minority groups.

The new Cato Institute study cites data showing job losses in places where living wage laws have been imposed. This should not be the least bit surprising. Making anything more expensive almost invariably leads to fewer purchases. That includes labor.

While trying to solve a non-problem — supporting families that don't exist, in most cases — the living wage crusade creates a very real problem of low-skilled workers having trouble finding a job at all.

People in minimum wage jobs do not stay at the minimum wage permanently. Their pay increases as they accumulate experience and develop skills. It increases an average of 30 percent in just their first year of employment, according to the Cato Institute study. Other studies show that low-income people become average-income people in a few years and high-income people later in life.

All of this depends on their having a job in the first place, however. But the living wage kills jobs.

Thomas Sowell
 
If you increase the price of something, you sell less of it.
Establish a mandatory price floor higher than market and you end up with a glut on the market.

These are basic Econ 101 concepts, and they apply perfectly to the labor market as anything else. We see the results: highest teen black unemployment probably ever.
 
If you increase the price of something, you sell less of it.
Establish a mandatory price floor higher than market and you end up with a glut on the market.

These are basic Econ 101 concepts, and they apply perfectly to the labor market as anything else. We see the results: highest teen black unemployment probably ever.

Once again we see the truth of the axiom of St. Bernard of Clairvaux...

....The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
 
Below is from a 2003 column by Thomas Sowell. Goes to your point rather well. As noted in the news recently and on a few threads around here, the new french president (Francoise Hollande) intends to raise the minimum wage in France. We'll see how it works out; I'm guessing not real well.

snippet:

Most studies of minimum wage laws in countries around the world show that fewer people are employed at artificially higher wage rates. Moreover, unemployment falls disproportionately on lower skilled workers, younger and inexperienced workers, and workers from minority groups.

The new Cato Institute study cites data showing job losses in places where living wage laws have been imposed. This should not be the least bit surprising. Making anything more expensive almost invariably leads to fewer purchases. That includes labor.

While trying to solve a non-problem — supporting families that don't exist, in most cases — the living wage crusade creates a very real problem of low-skilled workers having trouble finding a job at all.

People in minimum wage jobs do not stay at the minimum wage permanently. Their pay increases as they accumulate experience and develop skills. It increases an average of 30 percent in just their first year of employment, according to the Cato Institute study. Other studies show that low-income people become average-income people in a few years and high-income people later in life.

All of this depends on their having a job in the first place, however. But the living wage kills jobs.

Thomas Sowell

"...supporting families that don't exist, in most cases — the living wage crusade creates a very real problem of low-skilled workers having trouble finding a job at all."


Some believe that the poor benefit from minimum wage increases, and thus such increases function as antipoverty measures.

a. Some 80% of all minimum wage workers live in not-poor households. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/75xx/doc7527/93doc06b.pdf

b. …with almost 20% of these households earning incomes above $50,000. Robert R. Nathan, “The Impact of Increasing the Minimum Wage o Employment in Retailing,” p. 17

c. More than 50% of minimum wage earners are between 16 and 24-years old. Who Earns Minimum Wage? A Statistical Profile

d. Some 60% work part-time. Mandating Higher Unemployment - Forbes.com

e. “…nearly two-thirds of minimum wage workers moved above the minimum wage within one year of working at the minimum wage.” Rising Above The Minimum Wage | EPI Study

f. Only 5% of all working adults are paid minimum wage. Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2009
 
These are basic Econ 101 concepts, and they apply perfectly to the labor market as anything else.
i offer, that there is no single labor market. Rather, there are a panoply of sector-specific labor markets. Over-simplifying, there exists an "unskilled" labor market, and a "skilled" labor market. Minimum Wages impinge upon the former; Union Wages impinge upon the latter. Thus, there exist more price floors, than merely (so-called) "Minimum" Wages. Across the labor markets, at all wage-levels, political forces artificially require increased wages, and artificially impinge upon employment & productivity
 
These are basic Econ 101 concepts, and they apply perfectly to the labor market as anything else.
i offer, that there is no single labor market. Rather, there are a panoply of sector-specific labor markets. Over-simplifying, there exists an "unskilled" labor market, and a "skilled" labor market. Minimum Wages impinge upon the former; Union Wages impinge upon the latter. Thus, there exist more price floors, than merely (so-called) "Minimum" Wages. Across the labor markets, at all wage-levels, political forces artificially require increased wages, and artificially impinge upon employment & productivity
OK. That doesn't contradict anything I wrote. Thanks.
 
I think that you all should take jobs below the minimum wage. See how it works for you.

Then try and wonder whether you will be able to bargain, as a single laborer, with those corporations who have largely monopoly control over the labor market.

And wonder, why it is, that the middle class keeps shrinking and shrinking as your favorite politicians try to keep the minimum wage as small as possible.

And explain to me why I should worry about a company that feels it can not pay the minimum wage.
 
I think that you all should take jobs below the minimum wage. See how it works for you.

Then try and wonder whether you will be able to bargain, as a single laborer, with those corporations who have largely monopoly control over the labor market.

And wonder, why it is, that the middle class keeps shrinking and shrinking as your favorite politicians try to keep the minimum wage as small as possible.

And explain to me why I should worry about a company that feels it can not pay the minimum wage.

You shouldn't worry at all.
Now explain why it's OK to lock out people from the labor market and make them unable to gain experience, throwing them into perpetual government dependence.
 
I think that you all should take jobs below the minimum wage. See how it works for you.

Then try and wonder whether you will be able to bargain, as a single laborer, with those corporations who have largely monopoly control over the labor market.

And wonder, why it is, that the middle class keeps shrinking and shrinking as your favorite politicians try to keep the minimum wage as small as possible.

And explain to me why I should worry about a company that feels it can not pay the minimum wage.

You seem to completely overlook the reality of 'action and consequence'. I am completely supportive of decent wages, but the cost of that is that prices go up, or those jobs go overseas to countries where production is cheaper - like China. The reason that so much of our production left this country is because they could not compete with foreign manufacturing.

Every action has a consequence. I'm happy to pay higher prices to buy products made in this country. If you have an Apple product, or Nokia, or LG, or any other mobile technology product other than BlackBerry, then you do don't care where your products are produced. You are part of the problem. Don't pretend you want a solution.
 
There is the federal Min wage and then there are the individual states.

There are 4 states than have a minimum wage set lower than the federal minimum wage. There are 18 states (plus DC) with minimum wage rates set higher than the federal minimum wage. There are 23 of the states that have a minimum wage requirement that is the same as the federal minimum wage requirement. The remaining 5 states do not have an established minimum wage requirement.
The State of Washington has the highest minimum wage at $9.04/hour. The states of Georgia and Wyoming have the lowest minimum wage ($5.15) of the 45 states that have a minimum wage requirement.
About.com: http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm

The governmental basement for wages was instituted to combat the sweatshops that existed in this country. Without the min wage, historically, employers would pay a pittance. When people need work they will work for practically nothing. Of course in today's society people steal to make a living more commonly than in the past. Elimination of the minimum wage could create more jobs and would definitively reduce an employers payroll yet the average pay of the workers would probably decline creating a larger burden on governmental resources. Reducing these resources seems to be the general trend also, at least in theory, so on average the lower class of America would have lower wages, less governmental assistance and reduce their buying power. When they spend less the economy falters because they cannot buy products. Crime increases, more people go to prison and taxes go up to pay for more prisons and so on.

Cause and effect is very complex. Unintended consequences always crop up when something is instituted or abolished. From a business perspective, elimination of Minimum wage is desirable because it gives flexibility and a way to employ laborers cheaply, especially in a down economic atmosphere and a way to make more profit.

There are pro's and con's to both side of the arguments however no one knows what the real consequences would be. America is in a declining economy that appears to be stagnant. I have seen in the last year or a so companies getting rid of older workers and hiring temp and younger workers to make a bigger profit.
 
I think that you all should take jobs below the minimum wage. See how it works for you.

Then try and wonder whether you will be able to bargain, as a single laborer, with those corporations who have largely monopoly control over the labor market.

And wonder, why it is, that the middle class keeps shrinking and shrinking as your favorite politicians try to keep the minimum wage as small as possible.

And explain to me why I should worry about a company that feels it can not pay the minimum wage.

And I have the answer to one of your problems....


1. For a real-world perspective on the American ethic, find the Alan Shepard book, “Scratch Beginnings," in which the author recounts his own social experiment, at age 24, starting out at the lowest rung of the economic ladder. The question: could he conquer poverty in one year at his best efforts?

2. He left his home with nothing but a tarp, sleeping bag, an empty gym bag, the clothes on his back, and $25. The went to Charleston, South Carolina…a city where he had never been before, and where he knew nobody. He didn’t use his college education as a resume, nor any family or other contacts.

3. The first night he finds the Crisis Ministries homeless shelter, and, next morning, begins working odd jobs. Within a few weeks, he gets a regular job with a moving company. He moonlights on weekends to make extra money.

4. He makes friends and contacts, and these help him to find jobs and housing…Within five months, he gets a raise from the moving company to $10/ hour. And another, to $11/hour in less than nine months.

5. Progress was retarded by breaking his foot on the job, yet by three months he was able to move out of the homeless shelter and rent a room in a large house in an upscale part of town. (It was owned by a friend he met while working a second job on weekends.) Then, just a month later, he moved into a two-bedroom duplex with the cousin of one of his co-workers. It was a bit rundown, so the two of them spent a week-end making it like new. (His share was $325 because he took the master bedroom.)

6. After just ten months he was living in his own furnished apartment, with his own car, and he had $5,300 in savings.

a. The book also tells of other low-income people he met, and how they, also, would like a safety net second to their own work.

"Scratch Beginnings: Me, $25, and the Search for the American Dream" [Paperback]
Adam W. Shepard (Author)



"....the middle class keeps shrinking and shrinking..."
Not true.



"And explain to me...."

I want to commend you on being one of the rare Liberals not afraid to us "me" in a post. Most hide behind "us" and "we."



And....repeat this to yourself daily: Nobody owes you anything.
 
There is the federal Min wage and then there are the individual states.

There are 4 states than have a minimum wage set lower than the federal minimum wage. There are 18 states (plus DC) with minimum wage rates set higher than the federal minimum wage. There are 23 of the states that have a minimum wage requirement that is the same as the federal minimum wage requirement. The remaining 5 states do not have an established minimum wage requirement.
The State of Washington has the highest minimum wage at $9.04/hour. The states of Georgia and Wyoming have the lowest minimum wage ($5.15) of the 45 states that have a minimum wage requirement.
About.com: http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm

The governmental basement for wages was instituted to combat the sweatshops that existed in this country. Without the min wage, historically, employers would pay a pittance. When people need work they will work for practically nothing. Of course in today's society people steal to make a living more commonly than in the past. Elimination of the minimum wage could create more jobs and would definitively reduce an employers payroll yet the average pay of the workers would probably decline creating a larger burden on governmental resources. Reducing these resources seems to be the general trend also, at least in theory, so on average the lower class of America would have lower wages, less governmental assistance and reduce their buying power. When they spend less the economy falters because they cannot buy products. Crime increases, more people go to prison and taxes go up to pay for more prisons and so on.

Cause and effect is very complex. Unintended consequences always crop up when something is instituted or abolished. From a business perspective, elimination of Minimum wage is desirable because it gives flexibility and a way to employ laborers cheaply, especially in a down economic atmosphere and a way to make more profit.

There are pro's and con's to both side of the arguments however no one knows what the real consequences would be. America is in a declining economy that appears to be stagnant. I have seen in the last year or a so companies getting rid of older workers and hiring temp and younger workers to make a bigger profit.

Actually, the min wage was designed to prevent contractors from bringing in the abundant black workers from the south, when an Alabama contractor successfully won a bid on a government contract to build a Veterans bureau hospital on Long Island.
See House Committee on Labor, 'Hearing on H.R. 7995 and H.R. 9232, 71st Congress, 2d Sess. 17 (1930).

NY Rep. Robert Bacon....well, you know: Bacon-Davis Act.

please link to Hearing on H.R. 7995

From "Race & Economics," by Walter E. Wiliams, p. 33.
 
Last edited:
I think that you all should take jobs below the minimum wage. See how it works for you.

Then try and wonder whether you will be able to bargain, as a single laborer, with those corporations who have largely monopoly control over the labor market.

And wonder, why it is, that the middle class keeps shrinking and shrinking as your favorite politicians try to keep the minimum wage as small as possible.

And explain to me why I should worry about a company that feels it can not pay the minimum wage.

You seem to completely overlook the reality of 'action and consequence'. I am completely supportive of decent wages, but the cost of that is that prices go up, or those jobs go overseas to countries where production is cheaper - like China. The reason that so much of our production left this country is because they could not compete with foreign manufacturing.

Every action has a consequence. I'm happy to pay higher prices to buy products made in this country. If you have an Apple product, or Nokia, or LG, or any other mobile technology product other than BlackBerry, then you do don't care where your products are produced. You are part of the problem. Don't pretend you want a solution.
No, this is untrue. Jobs went away because manufacturing became much more efficient. Off shoring plays a small role in it. Wages in manufacturing are up. Because there are fewer jobs needed to produce the same amount of goods.
And I do not know why Left and Right has a fetish for factory jobs. A medical researcher makes more money than a guy who tightens nuts on car wheels.
 
Jobs went away because manufacturing became much more efficient. Off shoring plays a small role in it. Wages in manufacturing are up. Because there are fewer jobs needed to produce the same amount of goods.
so, higher-paying manufacturing jobs are dwindling "naturally", due to down-sizing, from increasing productivity & efficiency; meanwhile, lower-paying jobs are taken up abroad ?
 
Jobs went away because manufacturing became much more efficient. Off shoring plays a small role in it. Wages in manufacturing are up. Because there are fewer jobs needed to produce the same amount of goods.
so, higher-paying manufacturing jobs are dwindling "naturally", due to down-sizing, from increasing productivity & efficiency; meanwhile, lower-paying jobs are taken up abroad ?

Yup, that's pretty much it. About like agriculture, which had been a major employer 15o years ago.
 
1. In 1938 the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) established a federal minimum wage law for all employees engaged in interstate commerce.($7.25 as of 2009) When Social Security and medial benefits are included, the wage must be considered to be over $10/ hour. This governmental intervention in the labor market makes it impossible to argue that there is a free market in this respect.

a. While legislative bodies have the power to order wage increases, they have not as of yet found a way to order commensurate increases in worker productivity that make the worker’s output worth the higher wage.

b. Further, while Congress can legislate the wage at which labor transactions occur, it cannot require that the transaction actually be made, and the worker hired.


2. Employers, of course, are free to make adjustments in their use of labor. Often said adjustments are at the expense of the workers who are most disadvantaged in terms of their marketable skills. They will lose their jobs, or not be hired in the first place.

a. The workers who suffer most are the most marginal, usually youths, and racial minorities, disproportionally represented among low-skilled workers.

b. Not only are the above made less employable by minimum wage laws, but they lose the opportunity to upgrade their skills via on-the-job training.


3. The weight of research by academic scholars concludes that unemployment among some segments of the work force is directly related to legal minimum wages, See K.R. Kearl, et al., “What Economists Think,” and Alston, Kearl, and Vaughn, “Is There Global Economic Consensus,” both in the ‘American Economic Review.’



4. Minimum wage laws actually lower the cost of discriminating against the racially less-preferred individuals. To understand, consider this nonracial example on the effects of such ‘price-setting.’

a. Consider filet mignon and chuck steak. For argument’s sake, and in reality, consumers prefer the former.

b. Now ask, then why does chuck steak sell at all? And, in fact, why is it that chuck steak outsells filet mignon?? It is less preferred…yet competes favorably with something more preferred??

c. The answer is in what economists call ‘compensating differences.’ In effect the chuck says to you: “I’m not as tender nor tasty, but not as expensive,either! I sell for $4/pound, and filet mignon sells for $9/pound.”

d. Chuck steak, in effect, offers to ‘pay’ you $5/pound for its ‘inferiority,’ a compensating difference.

e. What if filet mignon sellers wanted to raise their sales against the less-preferred competitor, but couldn’t get a law passed forbidding the sale of chuck, what should they aim to do?

f. Push for a law establishing a minimum steak-price, say, $9/pound for all steak.

g. Now…chuck steak says: I don’t look as nice, I’m not tender or tasty as filet mignon, and I sell for the same price….Buy me!

h. Prior to legislation, the cost of discriminating against chuck steak was $5/pound…Now?



5. Thus, any mandated minimum lowers the cost (encourages) indulging in racial preference, or increases the cost of training unskilled labor.

6. Now, if there are mandated minimums, employers will seek the more highly qualified candidate. Due to a number of socioeconomic reasons, white youths have higher levels of educational attainment and training.

7. It should be pointed out that minimum wage increases gives employers an economic incentive to make other changes: substitute machines for labor; change production techniques; relocate overseas; and eliminate certain jobs altogether.
See "Race & Economics," Walter E. Williams

Wow, I'm convinced.

A. The best way to end racial discrimination is to pay racial minorities less.

B. The less we pay minorities the higher the profits for business and industry.

C. Higher profits will trickle down to racial minorites.

D. Isn't unregulated capitalism grand?
 
1. In 1938 the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) established a federal minimum wage law for all employees engaged in interstate commerce.($7.25 as of 2009) When Social Security and medial benefits are included, the wage must be considered to be over $10/ hour. This governmental intervention in the labor market makes it impossible to argue that there is a free market in this respect.

a. While legislative bodies have the power to order wage increases, they have not as of yet found a way to order commensurate increases in worker productivity that make the worker’s output worth the higher wage.

b. Further, while Congress can legislate the wage at which labor transactions occur, it cannot require that the transaction actually be made, and the worker hired.


2. Employers, of course, are free to make adjustments in their use of labor. Often said adjustments are at the expense of the workers who are most disadvantaged in terms of their marketable skills. They will lose their jobs, or not be hired in the first place.

a. The workers who suffer most are the most marginal, usually youths, and racial minorities, disproportionally represented among low-skilled workers.

b. Not only are the above made less employable by minimum wage laws, but they lose the opportunity to upgrade their skills via on-the-job training.


3. The weight of research by academic scholars concludes that unemployment among some segments of the work force is directly related to legal minimum wages, See K.R. Kearl, et al., “What Economists Think,” and Alston, Kearl, and Vaughn, “Is There Global Economic Consensus,” both in the ‘American Economic Review.’



4. Minimum wage laws actually lower the cost of discriminating against the racially less-preferred individuals. To understand, consider this nonracial example on the effects of such ‘price-setting.’

a. Consider filet mignon and chuck steak. For argument’s sake, and in reality, consumers prefer the former.

b. Now ask, then why does chuck steak sell at all? And, in fact, why is it that chuck steak outsells filet mignon?? It is less preferred…yet competes favorably with something more preferred??

c. The answer is in what economists call ‘compensating differences.’ In effect the chuck says to you: “I’m not as tender nor tasty, but not as expensive,either! I sell for $4/pound, and filet mignon sells for $9/pound.”

d. Chuck steak, in effect, offers to ‘pay’ you $5/pound for its ‘inferiority,’ a compensating difference.

e. What if filet mignon sellers wanted to raise their sales against the less-preferred competitor, but couldn’t get a law passed forbidding the sale of chuck, what should they aim to do?

f. Push for a law establishing a minimum steak-price, say, $9/pound for all steak.

g. Now…chuck steak says: I don’t look as nice, I’m not tender or tasty as filet mignon, and I sell for the same price….Buy me!

h. Prior to legislation, the cost of discriminating against chuck steak was $5/pound…Now?



5. Thus, any mandated minimum lowers the cost (encourages) indulging in racial preference, or increases the cost of training unskilled labor.

6. Now, if there are mandated minimums, employers will seek the more highly qualified candidate. Due to a number of socioeconomic reasons, white youths have higher levels of educational attainment and training.

7. It should be pointed out that minimum wage increases gives employers an economic incentive to make other changes: substitute machines for labor; change production techniques; relocate overseas; and eliminate certain jobs altogether.
See "Race & Economics," Walter E. Williams

Wow, I'm convinced.

A. The best way to end racial discrimination is to pay racial minorities less.

B. The less we pay minorities the higher the profits for business and industry.

C. Higher profits will trickle down to racial minorites.

D. Isn't unregulated capitalism grand?

Your inability to read and draw appropriate conclusions marks you as having sub par intelligence. I am sure you were well suited to law enforcement.
 
without the min wage, corpoations and companies were forcing people to work for poverty wages, having them live in corporate owned tenets, buying corporate goods and food from corporate stores in the tenet compounds.
I say it was very obvious how the common laborer was going to be treated.

The min wage allows a decent living from those that are selling a product for profit.
The min. wage does not hurt industries as it is shown that many corporations and companies operatiing in the US have had a great increase in profit while lowering wages and increasing work demand. In my feild of masonry the hourly pay for layers was 10- 14 dollars an hour in 1983. Today a bricklayer makes 12-14 dollars and hour. Hardly has this wage increased as much as the rest of society but was suppressed by the onslaught of illegals being hired to work for a smaller wage because in housing construction there is no set price for labour, only a bidding system.
 
Last edited:
Wow, I'm convinced.

A. The best way to end racial discrimination is to pay racial minorities less.
According to economic statistics, racial minorities tend to live in areas, and work the (low-skill) jobs, that would earn minimum-wage or less. Lowering the minimum wage would make their labor more attractive to employers -- more minorities would be hired, for longer hours. Plus, other jobs, now unprofitable, would become possible, at lower wages -- so even more minorities would find (some) job, and work (some) hours. Choking the labor market, by imposing minimum wages, and eliminating jobs & hours, restricts employment, and does not help employ people.

If low-paying jobs really are socially harmful, then perhaps "under-employment compensation" could be offered, i.e. Public assistance. But, private-sector businesses should not be bludgeoned, forced to pay more-than-market-value, for low-skill labor. Businesses cannot literally "make" (print) money -- if you squeeze them for wages, they'll only go broke. If you want to talk about Public assistance, that's a separate issue. But minimum wages only restrict employment, throwing many out of work entirely, and eliminating many (low-paying) jobs entirely. And, the more jobs available, the less Public assistance (ideally zero) they might need.

Imposing on the private sector (minimum wages), for Public policy (welfare), is not appropriate. Public assistance should be considered & debated, on its own. Meanwhile, minimum wages should be abandoned ("it is not McDonald's fault, that their hamburgers only sell for $1, so they can only pay a few dollars per hour for their workers"). Public policies should be clearly implemented, as Public policies; not entangled into the private-sector.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top