Quote: Originally Posted by Niflmir
The same way you identify a person who got lung cancer because they smoked as opposed to just getting lung cancer naturally. I don't think you will get very far with individualistic arguments. The argument against minimum wage is usually a sort of utilitarian argument on the grounds that society will be richer, where society is measured on cross section ignoring the standard deviation.
The difficulty with this argument is that it is short sighted. Are you even sure that minimum wage laws decrease unemployment? If we assume that wage follows a supply curve, then there are individuals willing to work for basically nothing. It is cheaper to higher these people for 70 hours a week than to hire one of these people for 35 hours a week and then a person who demands slightly more money for 35 hours a week.
Minimum wage can be seen to decrease unemployment therefore. Since with minimum wage legislation, it is much cheaper to hire 2 people at minimum wage for 35 hours a week, than one person for 70.
Now you're confusing minimum wage with working hours, which is covered in separate legislation. Minimum wage and maximum working hours are two separate things.
As for supply and demand, once everyone is employed, employers must then compete for them, thus pushing wages up to equilibrium. Also, once wages drop to the same rate as social assistance, it's natural many people would quit working and choose social assistance instead, and i that sense social assistance acts as a pressure valave of sorts.
Also, if the government provides skills training for those on social assistance, then they go back into the market in more demand and so can negotiate a higher wage. Add to this that with fewer people unemployed, it might even be affordable to increase social security by a little bit, which again pushes wages up.
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan
Why not cut-out the middle man entirely and have the gvt mail an annual chaequ of $20k to every man, woman and child in the nation... No unemployment issues and no poverty - problem solved.
Many would quit their jobs. Maybe $12,000/annum? Even that would be a little high maybe. Also, do you really want to give money to an addict, whether a sex addict, drug addict or gambling addict, or would it be preferable to provide him with room and board directly?
Providing room and board would probably be preferable in that sense.