US minimum wage map

[opebo]

Yes, $15 should be the federal minimum, but somewhat higher may be necessary in the First World portions of the U.S.

[opebo]

Yes, $15 should be the federal minimum, but somewhat higher may be necessary in the First World portions of the U.S.

Do you have ANY idea what a $15 minimum wage will do?

Yes - redistribute.

Of course I would back it up with a very generous welfare state to deal with the unemployment some imagine this would cause.

[opebo]

There is no economic benefit to price controls.

There you go again with the baseless, unsupported claims.

Anyway, the point of the minimum wage is to redistribute.  The overall economic effect doesn't matter (though of course I believe it would be quite good). 

[opebo]

The effects of price controls are well known. Inefficiency, shortages, poor quality, etc..

Those are price controls that keep the price lower than the 'market' price - this price control would be increasing the price.

[opebo]

I don't see why the government should be in the business of setting minimum prices for anything. Firstly, price controls (whether minimum or maximum prices) adversely affect the economy; such a distortion of the market ultimately leads to economic inefficiency.

Secondly, people should be allowed to work for whatever wage they please. The government has no business interfering with the liberty of contract, coercing both employers and employees.

Of course they do, emsworth, as the voters should expect it, for the simple reason that the vast majority of them will live in poverty without such interventions.

[opebo]

Of course they do, emsworth, as the voters should expect it, for the simple reason that the vast majority of them will live in poverty without such interventions.

Firstly, I disagree that a majority of the People will live in poverty. Such was definitely not the case before the U.S. established a minimum wage. And, it is not relevant if a few people live in poverty or not. The greater principle--opposition to coercion--is far more important.

No, prior to the 'big-government' post-war Keyensian/liberal era, the great majority of Americans lived in poverty.

As for your 'principle', who cares?  Why should anyone accept abject misery and ruination of their brief human life based upon some nonsensical principle that really just serves the interests of their owners? 

Like so many concepts, what you claim is 'opposition to coercion' is really just embracing a different type of coercion that serves a different interest group in society - hence all the poor corralled in jail at the present moment.

[opebo]

Like so many concepts, what you claim is 'opposition to coercion' is really just embracing a different type of coercion that serves a different interest group in society - hence all the poor corralled in jail at the present moment.

You are completely misrepresenting the issue. As A18 says, these individuals are in jail for coercion (stealing, for example). Laissez-faire capitalism is opposition to coercion.

No, just the opposite, Emsworth.  The poor are denied access to 'property' by force - the owning/ruling class is defended by the State which serves them.  Anyway all of the property of the owning class was previously 'stolen', for whatever that term is worth, from others previously, such as Indians (directly), and Black people (through slavery). 

What you're failing to do is lift your perception from the status quo of class relationships and the principles and terms defined by them, and look at things a bit more practically.  If you have a society in which .5% of the population control everything and recieve all the benefits, what does it matter if you call it 'capitalism' or 'serfdom' or 'slavery'?

[opebo]

I would argue that boom-and-bust cycles are not a result of the free market. The business cycle is not a feature of a free market, but is rather produced by governmental involvement in the first place. In particular, I would suggest that it is the government's monetary policy which is responsible.

How ridiculous.  Your type has such a nonsensical faith in 'markets' Emsworth.  Why?  They are merely manifestations of human psychology.

It is always relevant that people are living in poverty.  We will never be able to win the war on poverty, but we should always fight the battle to ensure that those who work hard are able to put food on the table for their families.

With the greatest possible respect, htmldon, the fundamental purpose of government should not be to wage a war on poverty.

Why not, Emsworth?  It may serve your interests to prefer this, but it does not serve the interests of most people.