Tom Moran, who I suspect penned that op-ed, said:
Zemac [sic], below, argues that it's immoral to set a minimum wage at all because it interferes with the freedom of a workers to enter a voluntary agreement with the owner, at whatever wage they choose.
Questions: What about a heroin deal, which both sides agree to? How about prostitution? How about building a factory in the middle of a residential neighborhood, assuming the property owner and factory owner agree? Do we not as a society have a right to set some bounds for the common good?
And sure, if minimum wage were raised to $100 an hour, it would kill jobs. If it were raised by a nickel, it wouldn't. So where is the line? That's where the economic studies come in handy. Too easy to dismiss that, and to take a stand on pure ideological grounds. Personally, I find Sitglitz's argument solid. It's in our common interests to support a liveable wage.
My response:
4 comments:
Before I read your response to Moran, I want to give you mine.
No. We don'thave a right to set bounds for the common good, except against initiatory force.
The line lies between having a min. wage & not having a min. wage, not at some point where a min. wage is high enough.
You're already taking your own ideological ground when citing your economic studies & such stuff. Your ideology is wrong. Mine's right. I'll cite economic studies & such stuff from my own ideology. Stiglitz's argument & notion of the common good is taken from his, & your, wrong ideology.
That's my response to Moran. Now I'll read yours.
Your response is essentially the same as mine, except you explain the ideologies involved more than I did. And you showed that there can be a legitimate function to be performed by what we usually call zoning or planning boards.
In your final point, I think your key idea is the concept of REAL wages & the actual value of a dollar, determined by productivity. What happens to the older worker who doesn't get that low level job because some kid gets it when there's no min. wage? He gets a better job that wouldn't be there WITH a min. wage. That's better than his being left with just a low level job and the kid having no job. All this happens because of the morality of free choice & free mkts. Morality leads to practicality, by cause & effect, morality being the cause. But it doesn't work the other way around. But the practical usually opens up more possibilities of the moral, of choices & freedom., caused by the right ideology.
That older worker can benefit in other ways, too.
When the value of the dollars the older worker makes rises, it raises the value of his savings, too. This may make it possible for him to retire sooner.
Well, yeah, true. I 'forgot'(!) about that. There's probably more. When things are put in order & done right, all kinds of good things come out of it. But it's crucial to keep a grip on what causes it, and how it works. That can get harder when things get good, stay good & keep getting better. Aside from education, the best way to keep the generations from forgetting is to leave'em open, right now, to what happens when they ignore what they're taught: no safety net, no entitlements, and I think no sensible charity will give help with NO strings attached.
Post a Comment