Pliny Posted February 17, 2014 Author Share Posted February 17, 2014 Of course, ‘Free Market’ is possible if your businessmen are honest and not greedy. Not "free" to the extent there are no basic laws. Laws discourage theft. Greed is an individual problem. The free market can work fine if businessmen are greedy. And let's not forget that anyone can be greedy. It's not just for "the rich." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reyb Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 (edited) Not "free" to the extent there are no basic laws. Laws discourage theft. Greed is an individual problem. The free market can work fine if businessmen are greedy. And let's not forget that anyone can be greedy. It's not just for "the rich." How can you discourage them with your law if your law itself says $0 minimum wage? Now, if you really see better life to American workers with your propose economic policy then, go to streets and shout about it. Let them hear you loud and clear. Edited February 18, 2014 by reyb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I didn't have time to post when this topic was hot, but here's my $.02 (or $7.25, or $10.10, or whatever). While I haven't read the entire thread, it seems there's a lot of unanswered questions? What exactly is a "living wage"? Who determines what a "living wage" is? The government? Should a "living wage" be the same as the minimum wage? Is absolutely every worker in every single job entitled to a "living wage"? If not, who determines which jobs do or don't need to be paid a "living wage"? Raising the minimum wage to a "living wage" would in reality only contribute to increased inflation and unemployment, and do nothing real to fight poverty. Producers paying minimum wage would increase the price of their products to absorb the cost of higher wages paid, or else they will lay off more workers to keep expenses down. The cost of everything would rise, and soon the new minimum wage would in reality be worth no more than the old one. If, as some are actually proposing, the law requires fast food workers to be paid at least $15.00/hr, the immediate effect would be that the price of fast food would rise dramatically to compensate for the higher wages, a lot of people would simply avoid eating fast food, or eat it a lost less, and there'd be a lot more burger joints going out of business, and a lot more unemployed teenagers. Also, there's simply no way for the government to know how much every single business can afford to pay employees. Some start-ups may actually be paying employees at a loss for the first year or so, before the company can actually turn a profit. Raising the minimum wage is a band-aid "solution" which may help politicians win votes, but does nothing real to lessen poverty. If the government could simply legislate wealth into existence, why not raise the minimum wage to $100.00/hr., and get rid of poverty forever? Or better yet, simply write everyone, working or not, a check for $1,000,000.00 to spend as they please. Of course, it doesn't work like that in the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 If the government could simply legislate wealth into existence, why not raise the minimum wage to $100.00/hr., and get rid of poverty forever? Or better yet, simply write everyone, working or not, a check for $1,000,000.00 to spend as they please. Of course, it doesn't work like that in the real world. Maybe it's possible for a policy to be good when pursued in moderation but bad when taken to an extreme? For example, creating roads is a positive thing, but paving the entire country with asphalt and turning the entire country into one massive, two lane road would probably be bad. http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/05/hayek-enemy-of-social-justice-and-friend-of-a-universal-basic-income/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted February 25, 2014 Author Share Posted February 25, 2014 Maybe it's possible for a policy to be good when pursued in moderation but bad when taken to an extreme? For example, creating roads is a positive thing, but paving the entire country with asphalt and turning the entire country into one massive, two lane road would probably be bad. http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/05/hayek-enemy-of-social-justice-and-friend-of-a-universal-basic-income/ Roads are necessary and contribute to the good of all. Price controls cause shortages or surpluses and are always a bad idea, unlike roads. Bad analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 (edited) Maybe it's possible for a policy to be good when pursued in moderation but bad when taken to an extreme? For example, creating roads is a positive thing, but paving the entire country with asphalt and turning the entire country into one massive, two lane road would probably be bad. http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/05/hayek-enemy-of-social-justice-and-friend-of-a-universal-basic-income/ I think your analogy is sound in the sense that a general policy (eg. social safety net) could end up being "good" or "bad" based on how it's implemented. However, I do think that you have to make sure you have the right general policy before you apply that test - it's not just a matter of everything being ok in moderation. From my perspective, with that analogy in mind, minimum wage laws are not a good way to implement a social safety net (for various reasons I could go into if anyone actually cared.) If a social safety net is what we are after then yes there are good and bad policies to achieve that end. I'd have to think more about what the blog post says and how it is referencing Hayek's thoughts... I found Friedman's approach to be much more straightforward. His support for the negative income tax vs our current welfare system was based more around a comparison of incentives and externalities than political theories. It was also very practical, in the sense that he foresaw a future "IQ economy" where some might be left out for no fault of their own which may be what we are facing today (though I believe there are other factors contributing to the current lack of job growth.) For anyone that is interested... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM Edited February 25, 2014 by NotreDame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 (edited) Roads are necessary and contribute to the good of all. Price controls cause shortages or surpluses and are always a bad idea, unlike roads. Bad analogy. I will beat Hasan to the punch and point out that you didn't get the analogy. Edited February 25, 2014 by NotreDame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I think your analogy is sound in the sense that a general policy (eg. social safety net) could end up being "good" or "bad" based on how it's implemented. However, I do think that you have to make sure you have the right general policy before you apply that test - it's not just a matter of everything being ok in moderation. From my perspective, with that analogy in mind, minimum wage laws are not a good way to implement a social safety net (for various reasons I could go into if anyone actually cared.) If a social safety net is what we are after then yes there are good and bad policies to achieve that end. I'd have to think more about what the blog post says and how it is referencing Hayek's thoughts... I found Friedman's approach to be much more straightforward. His support for the negative income tax vs our current welfare system was based more around a comparison of incentives and externalities than political theories. It was also very practical, in the sense that he foresaw a future "IQ economy" where some might be left out for no fault of their own which may be what we are facing today (though I believe there are other factors contributing to the current lack of job growth.) For anyone that is interested... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM Well, I honestly think that libertarians have many valid critiques of the modern social safety net. Particularly in the way it creates a massive bureaucratic structure and can create all sorts of negative incentives. So while I think that in our current political system with it's highly limited imagination a rise in the minimum wage would be a positive I would not necessarily disagree that the minimum wage is not the optimal way to implement a social safety net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Well, I honestly think that libertarians have many valid critiques of the modern social safety net. Particularly in the way it creates a massive bureaucratic structure and can create all sorts of negative incentives. So while I think that in our current political system with it's highly limited imagination a rise in the minimum wage would be a positive I would not necessarily disagree that the minimum wage is not the optimal way to implement a social safety net. Well, unfortunately there are a lot of good ideas that will be difficult to implement politically because they lack an opportunity for graft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Well, unfortunately there are a lot of good ideas that will be difficult to implement politically because they lack an opportunity for graft. Yep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 While I haven't read the entire thread, it seems there's a lot of unanswered questions? What exactly is a "living wage"? Who determines what a "living wage" is? The government? Should a "living wage" be the same as the minimum wage? Is absolutely every worker in every single job entitled to a "living wage"? If not, who determines which jobs do or don't need to be paid a "living wage"? It's better not to define what "living wage" actually means, because actually explaining that position would limit the use of "catholic social doctrine" as a club to wield on those you disagree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 As big a fan as I am of Wittgenstein I find these queries into the meaning of 'living wage' a little silly. This is a pretty narrow, technocratic question. It just doesn't seem like it is anything like an impossible question to answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Anyone particularly familiar with social credit theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God the Father Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Every kind of government/administrative institution you can imagine is designed and operated in order to augment the power of the political and economic elite. This includes the "minimum wage," which neutralizes the comparative advantage of the low-cost rural/suburban lifestyle and environment. Meanwhile it crowds the lowest-skill workers out of the labor force entirely, reducing them to utter dependence on the powers that be. Meanwhile prices tend to increase and middle-class local entrepreneurs may be faced with shrinking margins, depending on their industry--two phenomena that undercut the historically troublesome middle class and inhibit its capability to check the power of our overseers. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-05/obamas-minimum-wage-hike-wont-meaningfully-help-economy http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-12/how-properly-think-about-minimum-wage-problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Every kind of government/administrative institution you can imagine is designed and operated in order to augment the power of the political and economic elite. Aren't you in the army? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now