US minimum wage map

[Emsworth]

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.

[Emsworth]

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.

[Emsworth]

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.

[Emsworth]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would respond that any person who accepts a job does so voluntarily. Whatever wage the company pays is not forced upon him; rather, he signs a contract stipulating that wage entirely out of his own free will. This liberty, this freedom, is not something that the government should interfere with.

[Emsworth]

The responsibility of our government, as expressed at the time of its founding is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".  When people are not able to pursue happiness because of rampant poverty, government has no choice but to act.

In that case, we would have to agree to disagree. I am fundamentally opposed to coercive governments.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The government is not forcing anyone to enter into a contract to work. It is not punishing anyone for working or not working. Rather, any decision to work is purely voluntary, not the product of coercion by the government. They do not "have to" take the job; they choose to take the job.

Labor should not be regarded any differently than any other article of commerce. Just as the government should not control the minimum price of food or houses or cars, so too should it not control the price of labor. If someone wants to voluntarily sell his car for one dollar, he should be allowed to do so. If someone wants to voluntarily sell his labor for one dollar an hour, he should be allowed to do so.

[Emsworth]

People have families to feed here.  They cannot "voluntarily" decide to sell their labor for whatever they choose.

I beg to disagree. They make their decisions based on their own personal desires to improve their families. They do not do so out of fear of punishment or direct harm by the government or by anyone else. Thus, their action is voluntary, not coerced.

On the whole, I would say that no-one is "owed" a living. A company exists to make profits: that is its sole social responsibility (excluding legal responsibilities, of course, such as the responsibility not to defraud the consumer). Harsh as it may seem, a company is not responsible for providing people with a "decent living." It does not "owe" a decent wage to anyone; all it owes is profits to the investors.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you mean we as a society, I would not disagree. But if you mean we as in the government, I would.

[Emsworth]

A company has a responsibility to the community that it serves and has a responsibility to the individuals that work hard so that it can suceed.

Again, we shall have to agree to disagree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Government involvement in the economy seldom helps. In most cases, it leads to inefficiency and to poor quality. The free market should be allowed to determine what the appropriate price of labor is. Coercive determination of prices by the government is not only unjust, but also harmful to the economy. On the whole, a laissez-faire attitude would be preferred.

[Emsworth]

I have no issues with a minimum wage, provided it doesn't get out of hand. No matter what side of the fence one is on, I don't think anyone wants to see the return of the Jimmy Hoffa days.

The problems associated with Hoffa would have been avoided if antitrust laws were enforced against his union.

[Emsworth]

Emsworth is just a radical libertarian, and like all radical libertarians has trouble finding a home in the two major parties.

That is mostly true. The Democratic Party's economic policies are atrocious, as is the Republican Party's right-wing component (neoconservatives and fundamentalists). The Libertarian Party is too extreme, and, moreover, has a poor foreign policy.

Incidentally, if you think that I'm a radical, how would you label Bono?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Emsworth]

They are merely manifestations of human psychology.

That is correct. An assumption that a business would behave in a rational manner (i.e., in a manner best for the owner) is all that is necessary, really, to determine why capitalism is the best economic system.