Posted on 06/06/2002 5:39:12 AM PDT by Rodney King
When you were registering here, you REALLY wanted to call yourself "naderista", didn't you?
Volunteer landscaping prompts union protest - Post #8
Good job FreedomPoster!
Don't forget state and local income taxes, and property taxes, and sales or use taxes, and gasoline taxes and...
Is it me, or did Western Civilization reach its zenith in roughly 1957, and has been going downhill since then?
If job X adds $5.00 of value to my company per hour, and it is mandated that I MUST pay $7.00/hr, guess what's going to happen to that job? Someone will "choose" not to work, that's what. If I was allowed to hire someone at $4.50/hr, I could add to someones household income, but that would be evil of me, I suppose.
But the union movement has failed. This is one place where I believe in central government regulations. I do believe we need to regulate a minimum wage that is a living wage.if you did that it wouldn't be one for long. Prices of so many things would go up enough that the "new" minimum wage would have about the same purchasing power as the old one.
So then there'd be a push for a new "living wage" (or worse, to automatically tie the minimum wage to the cost of living). Then you'd have a nice inflationary engine that would wipe out savings and send interest rates screaming upwards. It's a recipe for disaster if I've ever heard one.
-Eric
Interesting perspective -- I would say that most peoples' definition of a "living wage" these days would be far more than what is required to keep them from starving on the street.
In fact, I would say that the whole debate about a "living wage," the necessity of two incomes to support a family, etc., is pretty meaningless in an era when people expect the government to regulate the price of something as extraneous as cable television.
On a thread yesterday, you said something to the effect of being a recent escapee from liberal thought. Another poster replied to one of your left-leaning statements that maybe you weren't all the way off the reservation yet.
After following you on that thread and now here, I think it's safe to say that not only are you still on the reservation, you don't even have your bags packed yet.
However, since you don't resort to attacks and name-calling when disagreed with, you must be at least thinking about your positions, so there is hope for you yet.
It certainly is. And like the title says, it is the mentality of these idiots that causes things like this to happen. They are so conditioned to that mentality.
I was in Philadelphia for a trade show and two of us were setting up our booth. Booths have been simplified in recent years and it only took us about 20 minutes. The last thing to do was place a light bar on the top of the booth and no sooner did we have the light in our hands, a "union" electrician came by and said it is required in his contract that a union electrician set the light up and plug it in. When we left the show we got the bill for the space rental and there was a $50 dollar electricians fee attached. That was the last time I went to that trade show.
Do you really believe every 16 year old with a summer job at McDonald's should be paid as if he were the sole support for a family of four? That's exactly what the "fair wage" crowd is demanding, although for obvious reasons they don't use this example.
Another problem. You can pass any fair wage law you like. Before you answer, let me drive you by a couple of our local parking lots where crowds of Mexican men have gathered by 7 a.m. for day labor. We already have a very substantial underground economy. Jacking up the minimum wage merely exacerbates the problem.
It is a simple fact that employers will simply not employ people who cost more than they are worth. End of story.
If we are going to have to support them, we might as well not distort the employment market in the process.
I don't think so. The solution is fraught with unintended consequences. Employers who want/need to dodge the high wage you impose have poeple work 39.5 hours per week. Does a single person get the same "living wage" as a the breadwinner in a family of four? Is the wage pro-rated based on how many "mouths" are being supported? Want a raise, have another baby. What happens if two or more single wage earners share expenses? Are wages reduced accordingly? What is a living wage for someone who also enjoys income from a trust fund?
The factors in deciding this "living wage" are nearly infinite. The market allows individuals to sort the marginal utility of each option creating much better solutions the government. Government merely politicizes the entire process and rewards those that maximize their power.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.