Bottom? What Bottom? There is no Bottom
Some more bottom.
Belatedly reading the comments on Michael’s piece on Bush’s swell money-saving plan I see that I’m not the only one who experienced genre-confusion. I thought it was all sarcasm, other people thought it was all news. One commenter objected to the mix and to the sarcasm, saying the news is so disgusting that jokes don’t quite play. Michael’s answer is interesting.
OK. I’m sorry to be so expository, but here’s the deal. First: I don’t think this post is funny. It wasn’t meant to be funny, and I honestly didn’t imagine that anyone would laugh at it. I did not laugh while I was writing it, for what that’s worth; I wrote it in a cold gray fury. Second: the reason I embedded real quotes in the second, “satirical” half of this post – George Bush’s, Barbara Bush’s, Tom DeLay’s – is that I think the (obviously) racialized subtext of those remarks is worth calling attention to in precisely this way. Third: the suspension of Davis-Bacon is obscene. And in the context of the Gulf Coast, it goes well beyond the ordinary screw-the-unions policy of the Bush GOP. It verges on a kind of local/national colonialism which, I think, has everything to do with race, poverty, and the question of who gets to sit on Trent Lott’s porch. I hoped that would be clear.
For the record, I don’t think humans have yet invented a prose genre adequate to this moment in US history.
Just so. I certainly went into a hot red fury when I read the real news stories. I would not have thought it possible. Which just shows what a chump I am. I find it hard to believe I could think any worse of the rodent in the White House than I already did, and yet I would not have thought it possible. How wrong can you be.
And he’ll get away with it. A serious tone and some Biblical-sounding language (this city shall rise again – the word ‘shall’ goes a long way, you know) and he’ll get away with further impoverishing people who’ve already been quite impoverished enough, one would have thought. While he and his friends get richer than ever. In full view of everyone. It’s unbelievable – but there it is.
From the CNN Money story Michael linked to.
President Bush issued an executive order Thursday allowing federal contractors rebuilding in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to pay below the prevailing wage…The Davis-Bacon law requires federal contractors to pay workers at least the prevailing wages in the area where the work is conducted. It applies to federally funded construction projects such as highways and bridges. Bush’s executive order suspends the requirements of the Davis-Bacon law for designated areas hit by the storm…”The administration is using the devastation of Hurricane Katrina to cut the wages of people desperately trying to rebuild their lives and their communities,” [California Rep. George] Miller said. “President Bush should immediately realize the colossal mistake he has made in signing this order and rescind it and ensure that America puts its people back to work in the wake of Katrina at wages that will get them and their families back on their feet,” Miller said.
No, see, because if they were responsible people they would have jumped in the SUV on August 28 and driven like a bat out of hell to Idaho or someplace like that. If they’re still in the area, that means they were irresponsible and shif’less and dependent on the federal gummint and expecting a handout and feeling a sense of entitlement. Some nice healthy outdoor work for substandard wages is just the ticket for people like that – teaches them to quit messing around and get jobs managing federal agencies so they can buy an SUV to get out of town in whenever there’s a big storm. See? It all works out. God planned it that way. And Barbara Bush is pleased for them.
Actually, Bush may be right on this one. Minimum wages discriminate against the poor and desperate. If forced to pay more money than unskilled labour is worth, employers raise their standards. That’s why minimum wages are advocated primarily by unions as it reduces competition.
Jim Pettit- I don’t see the logic of what you are saying. I don’t know of any economic evidence that employers do raise their standards with a minimum wage- what they tend to do is pass on their costs and hire the same people (since in situations like this they do not compete against overseas firms and so everyone is in the same boat).
I thought that minimum wages were advocated by unions because it gave their members higher wages.
The real danger here is exploitation- firms may employ New Orleans people who need money and have no alternative to the low wages on offer
Wages are normally self-regulating. Wages rise until vacancies are filled and fall if more people are looking for work than there are jobs.
If the government sets a minimum wage above what is required for equilibrium, then the employer has greater choice in the selection of workers to the detriment of the lower skilled.
It’s not exploitation, it is the law of supply and demand.
Minimum wages are not advocated primarily by unions. Just for one thing, if they were, they wouldn’t exist, would they. Especially not in the US.
I agree with Jim.
In fact, let’s take it a little further. Maybe workplace safety regulations are evil? After all, how dare the government get in the way of our freedom to work standing over vats of boiling acid with no saftey equipment?
Maybe, even, take it a little further still. “Freedom” hasn’t worked very well for the poor of thje South. Maybe the best solution is to allow them to sell their children into slavery. The children get a cup of gruel and a shack at no cost to the taxpayers. The rich get cheap labor for their mills and farms. That’s the ticket.
Or they could eat their children, or sell them as food, or both. Jonathan Swift was right. That’s the ticket.
Perhaps a little reading might inspire some informed debate. Try Wikipedia for a reasonable discussion of the effects of minimum wages. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage and note that they are a union demand in the U.S.
Oh, gosh, thank you, Jim – you’re quite right, I’ve never read a single thing about minimum wage in my entire life. In fact I’d never even heard of it until you mentioned it. I’ll just rush right off to read Wikipedia, because I have no other source on the subject available. Thank you so much.
By the way, the subject is not the minimum wage, it’s prevailing wages in the area. There’s a difference.
And finally, I didn’t say that the minimum wage was not a union demand, I contradicted your claim that they are advocated primarily by unions. Again, there’s a difference.
Well, OB, if only you’d read Reason, or Atlas Shrugged, or something, THEN you would learn the truth about evil gubmint and its evil minimum wage laws!
(Sorry. No more snark).
Has Jim ever tried to get by on minimum wage, let alone substandard wages? The only way you can do it is to work at least 10 hours a day, 6 days a week, and that’s only if you get together with 4 or 5 other wage slaves to rent some nasty place in the bad section of town. Even then, you’d better not get sick, or you’re really screwed.
Ah, what fun! Let’s abort a discussion about benefits (or not) of minimum wages, and sneer at the person defending an idea that is so well-accepted in economic theory that it is a facile platitude.
Guys, it is great to show moral superiority by your care for the poor. You hate their exploitation with justness. But if economic activity in New Orleans is F*CKED, don’t you think that getting the poor who need jobs working again is going to be beneficial, even at slightly reduced wages? The theory is to help them. As soon as there is work for all, the wages should start to move upwards.
Whether it works in practice, as the unions send gangs to enforce their closed shops, is another question.
The market clearing of unskilled, poor and antisocial groups is doubtful at any price when skilled and successful workers are what is preferentially recruited.
Restrictions on minimum wages and asian/other race immigration have historically been to protect the jobs of the unionised workers.
(I am told of the Irish in the late 19th century, just about fresh off the boat, demanding ‘their’ jobs when they saw black people employed and whites not, in New York. Was this how Joe Kennedy’s dynasty got a start in politics?)
The minimum wage sounds good to protect the weak from exploitation, but the flow-on effects are very debatable. I think some of the comments above are not about the debate though; they are about recognising a non-PC comment and using it to make a status display for yourselves.
Translation: You’re just grandstanding. Every schoolboy knows minimum wages hurt the poor. Unions are for criminals and thugs. Did I mention you’re just grandstanding?
Seriously, if we were talking about small businesses, you might have a point about the minimum wage. But we’re talking about crony corporations (Fluor, Shaw, Halliburton, among others) that have just received MASSIVE largesse in the form of multi-billion-dollar government contracts explicitly earmarked for reconstruction of the devastated region. Those workers taking the new substandard wages will be largely the same people who were abandoned by our government and left to fend for themselves in this disaster. Forcing them to take substandard wages just adds insult to injury–or should that be injury to injury?
Jim Pettit-
Sarcasm aside, I still don’t agree with you. The tendency in economics in the past 20 years has been to see the wage as a social institution rather than as a market price for a good. The reason for this is simple- human beings are not commodities and their wage does not just represent their price. So, for example, a higher wage will cause people to work harder (the so- called “efficiency wage” hypothesis) so a minimum wage may even increase produictivity.
Another problem is the existence of firms with buying power who can force wages down. This may very well be the case in the desperate circumstances in New Orleans where work may be hard to find. THis is certainly exploitation (if temporary) and the minimum wage can prevent it.
I’m still not sure how your selection argument works. Firms *can* select skilled over unskilled workers but it really depends what is needed for the job and whether it is advantageous for the firm. You might as well put an unskilled worker into a job as a skilled one if the job doesn’t require any skills. (Plus a skilled worker in an unskilled job may be more likely to leave the firm, incurring recruitment costs etc.)
I really don’y buy the self regulation part of your argument. Factually, the minimum wage seems to have little effect on unemployment (or on who is employed).
Apologies to all for the long post.
Sorry I didn’t see ChrisPer’s Post but my comments would be as follows:
“an idea that is so well-accepted in economic theory that it is a facile platitude.”
Possibly true 30 years ago but certainly false now. Economics has moved on!
“The market clearing of unskilled, poor and antisocial groups is doubtful at any price when skilled and successful workers are what is preferentially recruited.”
I agree- but they can still be recruited for unskilled jobs.
Being a Brit I’m not sure how American Unions behave but I don’t think that the TGWU in Britain sends mafia gangs to enforce closed shops. Maybe this is a cultural difference….
My objection is not to the argument being debated, but the smugness of the assumption that this is about profit.
I don’t know about all US unions (some though) but here in Australia the Builders Labourers Federation was probably the single largest standover gang in the country. Protecting their members pay rates was not done gently.
“But if economic activity in New Orleans is F*CKED, don’t you think that getting the poor who need jobs working again is going to be beneficial, even at slightly reduced wages? The theory is to help them.”
Is it? How do you know that? How do you know the theory is not instead to maximize shareholder profit? That often is the theory in the US, after all. That’s not merely an assumption, it’s something that corporations explicitly say.
“My objection is not to the argument being debated, but the smugness of the assumption that this is about profit.”
Name ONE action of the Bush Administration that has not been explictly (if disguised) about profit for, to use Karl’s term, “Crony Capitalists”? It’s not just a case of smug political correctness, it’s, to borrow a phrase from the enemy “Here they go again.” If you see this world weariness as smugness or pc, so be it.
“Name ONE action of the Bush Administration that has not been explictly (if disguised) about profit for, to use Karl’s term, “Crony Capitalists”?”
How about going in to Afghanistan to create a democracy?
Maybe. Motives are, of course, never really purely commercial. Afghanistan was indeed a response to a provocation. Which, one could admit was justified. There is stuff floating around of doubtful veracity, though, that the Bush Administration rebuffed efforts by the Taliban to neogtiate. Because, you see, there is a new oil pipeline the contract for which was just inked this year. I am certainly no expert, so…
Name ONE action of the Bush Administration that has not been explictly (if disguised) about profit for, to use Karl’s term, “Crony Capitalists”?
– Brian Miller
I suppose I should preface my answer by saying I detest the Bush administration and am appalled at the way it has handled the hurricane disaster in the Gulf Coast. Nevertheless, the Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind Act seems not to have been motivated by cronyism.
Because, you see, there is a new oil pipeline the contract for which was just inked this year.
This is one of those persistent and foolish conspiracy theories that prevent the public from taking the left seriously. This is almost on a par with the rumor that Bush knew the 9.11 attack was coming, or that Israel knew and sent emails warning all Jewish employees (and only the Jewish employees) at the World Trade Center to stay home that day. I do wish the left (Michael Moore, I am looking at you) would stop shooting itself in the foot via this crazy conspiracy theorizing. It makes me embarrassed to be a leftist.
“This is one of those persistent and foolish conspiracy theories that prevent the public from taking the left seriously…It makes me embarrassed to be a leftist.”
I hear ya, Brian U. Preach it, brother, preach it!
A contract for a pipeline was in fact recently signed, however.
However, note my caveats :)
I would never deny that the left is ripe with foolish conspiracy theories. Given what the Right believes and acts upon, why does “the left” have a unique duty to justify its crazier theories anyway? We spend our time attacking each other :)
The Left is certanly full of pompus odes to the joys of Islamic Madrassas and how the glorious Islamic revolution must forever be at war with the nefarious Israeli puppetmasters (read today’s (9/20) Anti-Semitism at Counterpunch. Why, oh why do I even read that stuff? Cool anti-war screeds by Paul Craig Roberts aside?).
“A contract for a pipeline was in fact recently signed, however.”
That may be, but it’s a long way from that to the “theory” that the US invaded Afghanistan to secure a pipeline deal. That’s exactly the kind of crackpot crap that’s killing the Left in this country.
Why should the Left have to purge this nonsense from its midst? Because the American Left is at a great disadvantage, politically. The Right gets a pass on its Robertsons and Phelpses, but the Left is made to answer (no pun intended) for every stupid, obnoxious thing Michael Moore and Ramsey Clark say. That’s just a brute political fact we have to live with and work around.
“Prevailing wage” as defined in Davis Bacon has nothing to do with minimum wages, and little to do with the actual prevailing wage. It’s set by a federal agency, and it’s usually higher than the actual prevailing wage. Can’t see why anyone would think suspending Davis Bacon is “obscene” or would be driven into a fury about it. It just means that people will now have their wages set by the market.
As for the comments about profits, isn’t it legitimate for the government to allow private parties to make a profit.? The days of the robber barons are long past. The dichotomy some posters have drawn between corporate interests and other interests strikes me as an oversimplification.
Corporations give people jobs, and provide goods and services usually much more efficiently than governments. If they make money, they’re taxed through the nose, and pass on the rest to the stockholdiers, i.e. mostly the middle class. . So if Bush is motivated to allow people to make an honest profit, then more power to him.
As for the right getting a pass, really? The NYTimes, CBS, Washigton Post, LATimes, ABC, CNN, AP, BBC, Guardian, etc, etc. give the right a pass? Next thing we’ll be hearing is that they’re all in Bush’s hip pocket.
Karl, I would hope the reason the left would want to purge the nonsense from its midst because there are members of the left who stand for something other than the conspiracy theories. Also it’s perfectly reasonable to hold the left to answer for Michael Moore etc. He had a seat at the Democratic convention. Cindy Sheehan had a ridiculous amount of press coverage. Ramsey Clark’s views are pretty close to those of Moveon.org. and Kos. The left has adopted the fringe elements into their mainstream. The right cuts the fringe elements loose.
“Karl, I would hope the reason the left would want to purge the nonsense from its midst because there are members of the left who stand for something other than the conspiracy theories.”
Nope. Sorry to disappoint you, but none of us ungodly pinko freaks stands for something other than the conspiracy theories. The only reason we want Moore et al. to shut up is because we have to fool the good God-fearing American people into voting for us. Once we have done that, we can begin our evil task of forcing your children to become gay drug addicts on welfare.
I can’t comment on the specifics of what’s happening in New Orleans, but I think laws guaranteeing a certain wage can be harmful, particularly in situations where things are not all hunky-dory. For example, recently in South Africa, a minimum wage was instituted for domestic workers. It was pretty modest and so seemed reasonable enough. Naturally, this drove many domesticated workers out of work. Those people wont find other jobs and so are worse off now. Some are better off, but has the lot of domestic workers improved overall? I don’t think so.
Stuart et al: That’s the difficulty/the fine line. Given the reality that most unskilled/underskilled workers have relatively little negotiating power (although the current whining of California agribusiness that they can’t find workers this year willing to wrok for minimal wages under brutal conditions proves that this is not always true), do you simply, as some propose, allow the market to gurgle downward to the lowest possible point? What about child labor-should adults have to compete with 10 year olds willing to work for pennies a day? The children and their families may be slightly better off, but will the labor market/society as a whole be better off? I don’t know, but I’m not convinced. Especially, as I’ve noted above as the same arguments could be made about workplace safety and health standards. Even though there may always be people willing to work in a mine with no safety equipment, do we as a society shrug our shoulders and eliminate OSHA and say “it’s their choice.”? Do we really want to become Boliva or Bangladesh?
Karl: as to political realism, you make good points. I would certainly never say that Afghanistan was primarily, let alone solely, attacked because of oil. Just note the interesting history behind many of the people involved.
It is interesting how “the right” gets a free pass-especially as many of their nut cases are far closer to power/have far more influence than Alexander Cockburn (and Michael Moore is hardly comparable in “evil” to, say, Pat Robertson.”
Minimum wage and child labor are two completely different issues. You shouldn’t compare places where there is no minimum wage with terrible working conditions. They might overlap often but they are different issues. I’m also not sure that the same argument can be applied to health and safety, I guess people could debate endlessly about how safe the workplace must be to be acceptable. I’ll just note that sick people tend to be less productive. In fact, the large corporations in SA (particularly the mines) have been the ones paying for anti-retrovirals for their workforce, and not because they have to.
I think the issue is a complex on though, and I’m no economist, but imposing a minimum wage can definitely screw people over.
But it’s another oversimplification to say that minimum wage laws can be harmful – as if they were only harmful and not at all beneficial. Surely it’s rather a question of harmful in some ways and beneficial in others. Can lead to some job loss, but also raise wages.
Yeah, I’m not really sure where I stand on the issue myself. I think its complicated, and I certainly lack the relevant expertise.
On the issue in general it may not be so clear cut; but I know where I stand on crony capitalism and kicking people when they’re down.
‘It’s complicated.’
My colleague has been telling me that.
But all the same, I think the benefits of the minimum wage outweigh the harms. Except when they don’t.
But all the same I think they do more than they don’t.
Not that I have the relevant expertise either. But I think it’s a political issue as well as a technical one – one where facts are relevant but so are basic values.
You are debating the minimum wage, when that’s not really what you should be debating. “Prevailing wage” is not “minimum wage”. The whole issue of the Davis-Bacon act is a great deal more complicated than that, and Kaus and some other people have been blogging a bit about it recently.
“The Left is certanly full of pompus odes to the joys of Islamic Madrassas…”
“Cool anti-war screeds by Paul Craig Roberts aside?).”
You really shouldn’t put PCR on the left, far right more like it.
“But all the same, I think the benefits of the minimum wage outweigh the harms. Except when they don’t.”
Well, that is pretty much a matter of where you set the damn thing.
If there is not too much employer market power, pumping up the minimum wage above a certain level means that low-productive labor (read: low-education, young, old, poor) will be introduced to the wonders of unemployment.
This effect is strenghtened by the elasticity of the supply of capital always being greater than the elasticity of the supply of labor. (This is simply because people have to eat. People don’t have to stash money into a savings account.)
(the spamming continues, sorry, but I’m coming late to this party…)
As for pipelines, I still remember some Pilger screed from ’99 laying out the nefarious Clinton pipeline scheme behind the Kosovo war. Funny stuff.
This inspired me to create a new model for explaining american wars:
IF (“Oil present within 1000 km radius”) THEN (“WAR FOR OIL”)
ELSE (“WAR FOR PIPELINE”)
I know – I did at one point say this is about prevailing wage, not minimum wage. But the minimum wage question got going, so I gave up and joined.
“Well, that is pretty much a matter of where you set the damn thing.”
No argument there.
But is your (pretty damn pumped up) rage really justified by the lifting of the “prevailing wage” requirement for rebuilding efforts? Here is what New-Dem Kaus has to say on the subject:
“A Democrat who is serious about using the state for the public good, as opposed to protecting the AFL-CIO, will realize that Davis-Bacon creates a huge hidden impediment to effective government action (if it involves building anything)–and will affirmatively welcome any initiative that undermines the Act. A Democrat who is worried more about union support will do what Drum and Reed do.”
dobeln: I do know where Mr. Roberts “resides” politically. :) antiwar.com, where he also posts quite frequently, is pretty much hard core libertarian, not really “left-wing.”
I still enjoy his passionate arguments on perhaps the one issue he and I may agree on (the debacle in Iraq).
Actually, to defend dobeln somewhat, Davis-Bacon does impose a pretty significant premium above minimum wage for construction projects. OFten, the difference between feasibility and infeasibility. Working for a government planning/redevelopment agency, there are projects that we would like to “assist” but cannot because Davis-Bacon imposes such a significant wage premium.
“Minimum wage and child labor are two completely different issues. You shouldn’t compare places where there is no minimum wage with terrible working conditions. They might overlap often but they are different issues. I’m also not sure that the same argument can be applied to health and safety, I guess people could debate endlessly about how safe the workplace must be to be acceptable. I’ll just note that sick people tend to be less productive. In fact, the large corporations in SA (particularly the mines) have been the ones paying for anti-retrovirals for their workforce, and not because they have to.”
My point is that decisions about both minimum wages-and safety regulations-are political/cultural decisions.
And, in a globalized world, I’m not convinced that relying purely on the market-especially for low end business sectors-will be a net positive benefit for the society. Sure, there may be more people employed because we allow workers to breathe unventilated fumes, but the net detriment to society from having sick people hacking their lungs out seems obvious. Not that all regulations are good or logical-but then, that’s why we have politics (and corruption and lobbyists, and the whole messy system). What I am rejecting is the libertarian screed that government regulations, including minimum wage, are inherently “evil” or incorrect.
what i am rejecting is the idea that anybody who suggests that minimum wage is bad for the poor is inherently “evil” or incorrect.
Fair enough, stuart.
Would you argue, then, that because certain low end manufacturers cannot compete with unregulated China because they have to install a ventilation chamber in their metalplating room, that we should eliminate such workplace security regulations?
Brian, i’m not really sure what this has to do with minimum wage.
anyway, as i’m sure i said somewhere else, i dont know that health & safety issues can be lumped in with minimum wage, i dont want to seem like i have decisive views on this, but i dont think matters are all that clear cut.
however, no, i dont think that american jobs should be protected from cheap chinese competition, as long as the chinese labor is not forced to work against their will.
It has to do with the minimum wage because the overarching issue is between laissez-faire and more or less regulation.
Exactly: Olivia summarizes it pretty well. The same arguments attacking minimum wage are used-generally by the same political forces-to attack “useless” health and safety regulations. “How dare the government prohibit us from drenching our field workers with pesticides. They’re just busy bodies who don’t understand free enterprise. Their’s always more unskilled labor where they came from, once we maim, wear out, or posion the current crop of “production units.””
Note: I am a government regulator. I know there are silly rules and regulations. But, we are talking, to a certain extent, first priciples here. “Should the government interfere in the market contract between an employer and his employee. For a variety of reasons, I would argue yes. Those attacking minimum wage laws fundamentally would argue “no.”
There . I’ve beaten this one to death. :)
Brian Miller – I don’t think your, and OB’s, simplification of the debate into the “overarching issues” or “first principles” is helpful. Basically, you’re saying it’s left vs. right and that “those attacking minimum wages” are invariably on the right. Oh, and they want to “drench… field workers with pesticides”.
That’s a nice caricature, and I’m sure being on the right side of such a clear moral divide gives you a great sense of superiority, but how has it added to the debate?
Firstly, there are still differences between specific types of regulation. We may all agree that governments should occasionally intervene to prevent market failures, but that doesn’t help with the more important question – when and how should they intervene?
Secondly, there are many positions that can’t be slotted into the simplified view of the political spectrum.
For example, it’s perfectly possible to hold all of the following views simultaneously: 1. A legally enforced minimum wage is a breach of my freedom to make a mutually beneficial contract with another person 2. Government attempts to control my religion, sexual orientation, lifestyle etc are a similar breach of my freedom
3. Government should top up everybody’s income to a level that society deems acceptable.
But how would such a package of views be classified on the left/right scale?
I am not “simplifying” things at all. I certainly understand that people can hold “contradictory” views on things.
At the same time, you cannot deny where MOST if not all of these anti-minimum wage arguments come from. You may indeed be an exception, a “liberal” (whatever that means these days) who thinks these regulations are harmful. But, again, most of the arguments against the minimum wage ARE coming from a free market absolutist/conservative viewpoint that would indeed eliminate many health and safety regulations. The “point” of my argument is that your argument can indeed, despite your protestations to the contrary, be extended to a whole range of political decisions. You continue to deny that. I’m not sure why my argument is so bereft of value-I’m just pointing out the intellectual roots of YOUR argument. Even if I use a bit of exageration to make my point. (A point that is not that far fetched. Jack Abrahamof (spelling?), a now fallen from grace “Big Wheel” in the Republican Party’s lobbying wing, spent much of his early career “protecting” the “free market” in the U.S. Pacific possessions. This “free market” included NO MINIMUM WAGE, LOCKED FACTORY DOORS, no safety regulations for the workplace, no limits to hours worked. Straight out of 1878. I’m sure the contract workers brought in, via an exception to immigration regulations, loved the
free market!
As for self-righteousness-so what! I hope I “beleive” what I am saying. Your constant cajoling of us for such “self righteoussness” strikes me as a bit of self regard in itself, so how does this ad hominem attack in itself “advance the debate” in any way?
GT – I’m not over-simplifying, I’m urging other people not to oversimplify. (Well I would say that wouldn’t I. But all the same.) I’m not saying that minimum wage laws never ever increase unemployment, I’m saying that it’s too simple to say that unemployment laws [can/sometimes] increase unemployment therefore they’re a terrible idea period. I’m also reminding people that arguments against minimum wage laws and other laws that violate the principle of a completely unregulated market do not come exclusively from disinterested scholars – they also come from, for instance, people who don’t want to give their employees more money. It’s as well to keep that in mind, it seems to me.
Ha – cross-posted with Brian.
My point was that the method of dismissing the idea by association and perceived motive is somewhat insulting. Let’s rather discuss the idea on its own merits, rather than according to who espouses it.
Yes, one of the views that I put forward (that people should be free to make whatever contracts they wish with other people) can be applied to a whole range of political issues. I would argue that in all those issues, it is an instructive and useful principle, even if not always the deciding consideration because the specifics of the issue obviously do vary and do matter.
I would also argue that the more closely this principle can be adhered to in solving a particular problem the better. So for example, to solve the problem of people earning less than what is deemed socially desirable, rather fund the amount required to bring them up to the minimum out of general taxation than interfere with the rights of a particular person and a particular employer to come to an arrangement that suits them. And after all, isn’t it society in general that is demanding these minimum standards, so why shouldn’t society in general pay for them. Requiring individual employers in particular industries to pay the difference seems rather like asking someone else to pay your contribution to charity.
The point is that market liberal principles don’t necessarily have to be applied in a “free-market absolutist/conservative” way that denies the usefulness of all government and assumes taxation is the ultimately evil.
I do think it is sad that these principles have been hijacked and twisted by genuinely unpleasant conservatives, business lobbies and special interest groups to suit their own purposes. But this has no bearing on the validity of the ideas themselves. I also don’t think these groups represent the “intellectual roots” of my argument. Market liberalism grew out of the European Enlightenment in the 18th century, along with concern with freedom and human rights in general and opposition to oppression of all kinds, and probably found its most definitive expression in John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty” in the late 19th century. And plenty of support for these views does still come from “disinterested scholars”.
apologies for the length of this post.
Brian- when you say ‘YOUR argument’ were you talking about GT or me? No matter, I just don’t want to sound like I am responding in GT’s place, even though from what I gather I share his views.
I don’t really care if most people who argue against a minimum wage are of the inherently evil variety, but it isn’t really relevant in deciding on which policy to support. Interests of big business are certainly significant (but I certainly am aware of that, and I daresay GT is too), and I gather that it does lead to some dodgy economics sometimes, for example the Republicans ‘supply side economics’, which includes the idea that you could increase tax revenue by cutting taxes (the economy will really grow that much, wink wink). But I don’t need to argue that because economists don’t buy it. Also, subsidies to protect the steel industry hardly accords with free market principles. But also the average economist is not really that well paid, especially compared to some other business related professions. I am pretty confident that there is a general consensus against minimum wages.
That health and safety considerations can be separated from minimum wage issues should be clear that Sweden does not have a minimum wage (taking doebln’s word), and I have been talking about minimum wages specifically and their effect on the poor. Having said that, I agree, talk of minimum wage does lead to talk of the health and safety standards, and I haven’t read a great deal on the topic but hear goes. Firstly, some jobs are dangerous, it is normally up to us if we want to become a fireman, I might consider if to be too dangerous no matter what it pays but more likely there is a limit, and if it pays over a certain amount I’d take the job. If it pays less than that I am perfectly entitled to remain unemployed. The key is that it is my choice. Same principle applies to other jobs, so long as I am not deceived (for example, am surprised to find myself locked in) as to the risks of the job I think I should decide. The key is that it might be better than the alternatives even if it is shitty. I can imagine that in rich countries people are not that relaxed about being drenched with pesticides, so maybe products that require employee drenching will be imported from poorer countries. What’s the problem if Americans are unwilling to compete with Indian workers (don’t take this to mean lack of sympathy for Indian workers, but low wages is pretty much the only way they can compete, for now anyway)?
I think the argument has gotten too bogged down on the issue of unemployment. It is pretty much impossible to measure the effects of a moderate minimum wage. It clearly helps some people, but again who? In England by far the majority of people helped by the recently installed minimum wage were not living in poverty. Most living in poverty were already unemployed. OB- I don’t think that the fact that a minimum wage (might??) increase unemployment, is in itself a good enough reason to think them a terrible idea (why so terrible?)
I think that the motive fallacy has been committed in both threads on minimum wage. Assuming the caricature of the capitalist pig that doesn’t care about his workers it doesn’t follow that all policies he favors (even if they make him richer) hurt the poor (if fact a crucial feature of economics is that both parties can benefit materially from interacting, be it between employee and employer or between economies). This is especially obvious of the kinds of people who protest G8 meetings and on May Day. They are overflowing with good intentions for the poor, one would think that the policies that they favor would help the poor. Sadly I don’t believe this is the case at all. My sincerity or yours is very much besides the point.
I think the problem here is that when we see somebody in a crap job it seems callous not to wish her more money. If we are serious about helping the poor we need to be able to reject intuitively appealing solutions.
well… he replied first anyway…