1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/6742/minimum-wage-laws-economics-versus-ideology/

Minimum Wage Laws: Economics versus Ideology

June 14, 2007 by

The bad news is that the recent victory by House Democrats led to an increase in the national minimum wage. Institutional factors are now against opponents of minimum wages, and President Bush has proven himself unreliable as a defender of free markets once more. The good news is that factual evidence and logic remain on our side. We can win this debate, and this is a debate worth winning. FULL ARTICLE

{ 44 comments }

David C June 14, 2007 at 8:07 am

“Dannin claims that opponents to minimum wage increases practice “economics-lite” and have been bought off buy wealthy corporations in an effort to increase corporate profits.”

I was under the opposite impression. Minimum hits the small companies and startups the hardest because they have less efficient opperating costs. Wal-Mart can pass those costs on with far less of an effect of profit margins than a Mom & Pop store can.

Allen Weingarten June 14, 2007 at 9:34 am

I cannot agree that “We can win this debate by focusing on sound theory and accurate facts.” This presumes that the argument is primarily about economics. The free-market advocates continually lose to the interventionists because the latter rely on a ‘moral’ position, namely that it is right to redistribute wealth. Until we compete with a different vision of what is right, they will continually win the war of ideas, which is primarily on the moral plane, and secondarily on the theory and facts of economics.

Alex MacMillan June 14, 2007 at 11:15 am

Allen is absolutely correct. The left are about perceived equity and greater equality. Concerning the minimum wage, their view, regardless how they dress it up, is that people ‘should’ (in an equity sense) be paid what the left deems to be a ‘fair’ minimum wage rate. This is what the left perceive to be the moral position. If minimum wage rates lead to fewer people working, the left believes this means that those released from employment would no longer be exploited by employers paying them less than what the workers ‘deserve’. The left then believes that those displaced should be paid by the state either by unemployment insurance payments or welfare.

There are few on the left who would dare state the above position so bluntly when facing taxpayers. Much better to quote studies that support the position that no one will be thrust into unemployment by the minimum wage.

HitTheBid June 14, 2007 at 12:31 pm

As a person on the left, I think you all are sort of right.
its an equity argument for sure, but its more based on the fact that inflation has eroded the value of the minimum wage significantly over the years…and rectifying that is morally just, in this particular sense, and very few disagreed…that is why your argument lost in the actually pertinent realm of applied policy and politics.

Scott June 14, 2007 at 12:44 pm

HitTheBid is right. Inflation erodes the value of money every second of every day, putting the poor and middle class at an extreme disadvantage. It’s hard to argue against minimum wage hikes without bringing up the banking cartel and inflationary monetary policy. So, it is no surprise to me that there is so much support for minimum wage hikes – everyone experiences inflation but most don’t understand why it occurs, so they fight the bad effects without understanding the cause.

Kevin B. June 14, 2007 at 1:29 pm

HitTheBid: “…that is why your argument lost in the actually pertinent realm of applied policy and politics.”

“It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.” – William G. McAdoo

What we have is another example of ignorant people trying to put out a fire by fanning the flames.

While the buying power of the minimum wage has been reduced through inflation, the imposition of the minimum wage itself (at ANY level) has significant costs, both hidden and obvious.

I agree that when it comes to appealing to the masses, as long as they remain ignorant, their quite flexible “moralities” are an easy target. Those on the left (or on the right, etc.) will continue to use these tactics for as long as they can. The author is correct to say that logic and evidence, learning and studying are important, since knowledge is key in the struggle against ignorance.

“Against such a majority we cannot effect [the gathering them into the fold of truth] by force. Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments.” – Thomas Jefferson

Daniel M Ryan June 14, 2007 at 1:37 pm

Hithtebid and Scott have made good points, given the context he’s supplied. Here’s my own guess as to why the minimum wage is continually criticized in a context-free manner: it’s the American answer to Britain’s Corn Laws. This analog exists because virtually the entire economics profession has accepted that the minimum wage causes unemployment, with the more liberal end of the profession accepting the finding as a “social cost” for the presumed social benefit of those laws. A similar consesnsus existed regarding tariffs in the early 19th century.

Paul Marks June 14, 2007 at 2:11 pm

First of all this article should be e.mailed to Dannin and to the place where he published his article.

Whilst it is almost certainly the case that Dannin is a person to whom neither reason or evidence will matter – there is this word “almost”. It is possible (possible not probable) that reason and evidence can influence him or the people associated with him.

As for the minimum wage law idea itself:

As is well known the Austrian school stresses logic as the basis for economics as opposed to trying to ape the empircial methods of (for example) physics. However, in this case whether one follows a logical approach or the empirical approach the result is the same – minimum wage laws are insane.

HitTheBid states that “inflation” (by which he means rising prices) has cut the real minimum wage. This is the about the only good thing that can be said about rising price “levels” (I know of the problems involved with a price “index” and how the word “inflation” is better defined as a rising supply of money, but let us leave all that by).

Just as with the inflation of World War II breaking through the union-government real wage level support and, thus, dealing with the mass unemployment of the 1930s, so the inflation of recent years has (although it has done great harm in other ways) prevented minimum wage laws from doing much more harm than they have done.

Of course HitTheBid also said that minimum wage level increases have won the “political” argument.

Arguments for “just prices” or “fair wages” normally do win political arguments – this is evidence that politics is absurd.For politicians and administrators to try and decide what a “fair wage” is makes no more sense that politicians and administrators to try and decide what a “fair price” is (of course they try that as well).

To talk in terms of “just prices” and “fair wages” shows a basic lack of understanding about what a price system is. Price and wage controls make no more sense now than they did when various Roman Emperors (and other despots) tried them. They lead to shortages, unemployment and other harm.

Whether politicians and other such really are as ignorant as they sound, or whether they just pretend in order to gain popularity, is a moot point.

Paul Marks June 14, 2007 at 2:20 pm

I apologize for using the word “he” and “him” above. I should, of course, have typed “she” and “her”.

Ellen – the first name passed me by. Perhaps because the only Ellen I know would not have used abusive terms like “economics lite”. I tend to associate political abuse with men. This is, I accept, a sexist assumption. After all I use strong language, and male poltical foes use strong language – so why should not women use strong language?

Rob June 14, 2007 at 3:53 pm

Neither has the personal income tax exemption but I don’t hear leftist crying over that one.

1914 $3000

2006 $3300

Of course we must consider that $3000.00 in 1914 bought about as much as $60,000 does today.

Daniel M. Ryan June 14, 2007 at 4:13 pm

Good point as well, Rob. In fact, a real case can be made that the entire income-tax system was a “Seduction of the Poor.” Or, if you prefer more purpled titles: “History of the Income Tax: The Baiting and the Switching of the Middle Class.”

Kevin B. June 14, 2007 at 4:39 pm

Daniel,

The second one sounds like a seller. Amazon? ;)

DW MacKenzie June 14, 2007 at 4:44 pm

It is not clear that moral arguments drive politics. In my experience teaching I have found that most people are “too pragmatic” to worry about the “fine points” of ethics. Most people are as unwilling to sacrifice efficiency (living standards) for egalitarian ends as they are unwilling to sacrifice efficiency for natural rights. The ethical arguments carry much weight with the far left, far right, and libertarians. But the center wants whatever works best. At least that is my impression. I have nothing against arguing for self ownership and all, but most people seem not to be moved by such arguments. If we can convince the majority that the system based on natural liberty also delivers the goods, we have won. If the left wins the efficiency debate (as it did during the depression), we lose the whole thing. We are right regarding efficiency (and were back during the GD), so why not push efficiency arguments?

Furthermore, I think that efficiency is important in its own right. As for small firms, small businesses sometimes fold due to minwage laws, but large firms can gain by hiring low productivity workers too. I see no apriori reason for MWLaws not to affect large firms.

TGGP June 14, 2007 at 6:31 pm

Here’s a good Russ Roberts post at CafeHayek about the subject with links to more information: The Empirical Literature on the Minimum Wage

Nasikabatrachus June 14, 2007 at 7:19 pm

“I was under the opposite impression. Minimum hits the small companies and startups the hardest because they have less efficient opperating costs. Wal-Mart can pass those costs on with far less of an effect of profit margins than a Mom & Pop store can.”

I agree. I seem to remember hearing Wal-Mart advocating for raising the minimum wage in Illinois a while back.

Som June 14, 2007 at 8:58 pm

I don’t think the “argument from morality” is the right term here. People from different religious backgrounds are rightfully suspicious of such a phrase. If you want to talk about the ethics of this or that I strongly suggest saying the “Argument from Justice” because it is the more correct term. If we say “argument from morality” we can justify all those prostitution and drug laws off those grounds (not good!). I think the best way to use the “argument from Justice” is to explain to people what the law exactly is.

The best explanation I have found so far is from Murray Rothbard’s “Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution” Rothbard also pointed out that libertarians are truly lacking in legal theory, and I completely agree. However, his insight in explaining a law being a set of commands, which, if broken, call for the threat of death of violence of the offender. So if you break a law, and you just ignore the commands of the law enforcers, they eventually will threaten you with death. What do want as laws now we understand it from this perspective?

So ask some ideologue or moderate what the minimum wage law really means. then go through that it means “ok if you and I agree that you work for me for a wage lower than the “minimum wage law”, some other people are going to come and, if we just dont listen them and you come work for me and I pay you the money we agreed on, they will repeatedly threaten us. But what if I just ignore them, and even if they try to tackle me down (like prison) but once they let their guard for just the slightest second, I break out and you and I keep committed to our agreements. Eventually they will either imprison for life or, if I resist to the VERY bitter end, they will KILL me. Now is that REALLY worth it to set a price floor? Sounds kinda…insane…psychotic? That’s like killing a kid when he just keeps refusing to eat broccoli, no matter how many times you try to shove it down his mouth, ground him, etc… Don’t people normally just leave the guy alone when you can’t pursuade him to go a better way to go (outside an imminent life or death situation)

Of course, some people might get mad at this analogy, but I’ve stayed my course and refused to budge from my argument. Eventually my friend who I told to told me “yeah ok, mr econ and law major, but everyone knows that no minimum wages just can’t work”

THEN this article (and many other mises institute) articles come in.

I think most people join politics because of their altruism. If you show them their belief of “justice” is not so altruistic as it seems, they will almost always get mad, but if you stay firm, maintain your composure (easier said than done), and put you and him/her in the picture, it makes them resort to the pragmatic argument. Which of course, is easier to refute. I haven’t done this minimum wage laws yet, but it has gotten through with a few friends when discussing Wal Mart (so if I had good stuff to sell cheap on my property, you would call for my DEATH until I stop?)

Any similar experiences?

Som June 14, 2007 at 9:08 pm

Ok sorry about all my grammatical errors from my last comment, and also I meant to say “I have’t done this too much outside of minimum wage laws yet” not “I haven’t done this with minimum wage laws yet.” Nonetheless I believe starting with the argument from Justice is useful and effective.

I noticed it works well with people who are somewhat indifferent, or even somewhat ignorant, to politics, at least the couple of times I have tried it.

TLWP Sam June 14, 2007 at 9:44 pm

But don’t right-wingers oppose minimum wage increase because they can use inflation to allow the minimum wage to fall right down to something more natural and save face in the process? Nonetheless I s’pose the ol’ reply to “aw heck our wages is falling due to so many people from poor countries who work for even less” is that “well I s’pose it time for you people to learn new skills and start competing in higher level jobs ’cause in this global economy any very low to unskilled jobs are going to be inevitaby taken by the poorer members of the world, duh!”.

Hans Luftner June 15, 2007 at 12:16 am

I don’t even bother with the ecomonic argument anymore. Either it devolves onto a discussion about which data to is correct, or their eyes glaze over as I try to explain praxeological theory.

Instead I just point out that I don’t approve of violence. That puts them on the defensive as they try to justify using violence to impose an economic theory which I can then point out is, at the very least, unproven.

Francisco Torres June 15, 2007 at 12:33 am

Instead I just point out that I don’t approve of violence.

That is the best argument. I use it first, before any economic analysis, when it comes to the minimum wage. The non sequiturs and rationalizations that come from Statists become quite hilarious in the face of such an argument.

Todd Whitesel June 15, 2007 at 2:38 am

I personally do not want to hear any more studies on either side of this issue. The classical economics viewpoint is clear: constraints of any kind distort the market and reduce efficient use of resources.

But isn’t it also a market distortion to encourage an oversupply of labor by refusing to enforce immigration laws?

Isn’t it also a market distortion to inflate the cost of housing through property taxes?

And isn’t it definitely a market distortion to inflate the cost of everything when the Fed slaps rent controls on the price of renting money?

And of course there are all the government subsidies to businesses that make no sense, yet lobbyists manage to get them extended anyway.

To rail against the minimum wage when all these other distortions are occurring is futile. We will never make true progress as long as the battle is over whose income is most worthy of artificial protection.

When you ask people to accept a quantum drop in living standards because the economy wants to be more efficient, you are asking for resentment. More economists would do well to understand this point. Hazlitt certainly did.

Robert June 15, 2007 at 3:40 am

As far as I know, nobody has challenged Card and Krueger’s meta-analysis of their predecessors. Libertarian beliefs about minimum wages are not founded in correct economic theory, either.

DW MacKenzie June 15, 2007 at 5:54 am

I have heard a few things about meta-analysis, reswitching, reducing turnover and so on. You can prove anything, in theory, if you set up the right combination of assumptions and perform enough twists and turns. Such exercizes generate results that are special cases at best. But remember several points-

1. employers cannot pay more than discounted margial labor product, or they lose money and go out of business. This is a fact.

2. Competition for labor drives wages up towards marginal labor product. Most employees already get more than minimum wage- this is also a fact. There are certain advantages to paying most workers higher than minimum wage. To the extent that minimum wages would, if at all, raise employment, competition has already driven wages up to swamp those alleged effects, to the extent they exist.

3. Things like capital switching and reducing turnover are unlikely to have much affect on minimum wage workers, because low productivity jobs are also low skill jobs that require little retraining, and are not too tightly connected with capital formation.

4. There were hundreds of studies before C+K, and they showed a different result. It is necessarily the case that a few out of hundreds of studies will be different. The probability of all stidies showing the same result is miniscule. C+K mean nothing, given that so many other studies give the opposite result- even if C+K were completely honest. For the left to attribute such significance to C+K, given the mountain of opposing evidence, proves only that they are blinded by ideology.

5. Some say that C+K tinkered with their data. I do not know this for a fact, but this is very possible.

The bottom line is that C+K is at best a special case, and even if they are right, there is only a very limited rage over which minimum wages could be raised without rducing employment. There is a reason why teen unemployment rates are always in double digits- minimum wages.

Jean Paul June 15, 2007 at 5:56 am

the minimum wage should be referred to as the “minimum eligibility to work”. It is far less an aggression against ‘greedy capitalists’ than it is against unproductive workers, so the name should properly reflect that.

TLWP Sam June 15, 2007 at 9:03 am

Could you further explain how your concept works Robert? I’d have to agree with folks here that if increase minimum wage works wonders then why not set the minimum wage to $1 million per year (without any inflation)? Is it a case of happy workers are productive workers? I’m still a grump who reckons in a free market, supply and demand determines the take home pay of a person.

Allen Weingarten June 15, 2007 at 9:25 am

Lord Acton wrote “Those who would treat politics and morality apart will never understand the one nor the other.” Now Som questions the “argument from morality” and strongly suggests the “Argument from Justice”. Since I wrote that the war of ideas is primarily on the moral plane, permit me to state my definitions. ‘Justice’ is where people get what they deserve, as in “As ye sow, so shall ye reap.” ‘Morality’ is then the means for obtaining justice. Thus although justice is the ideal, the method for obtaining it is most at issue. Hence, justice is not in conflict with morality, but is the end to which morality must aim. In particular, I recommend that “None have the right to initiate force, but the collective obligation to counter it.” Before anarchists object to any collective obligation, first notice that this moral imperative is directly opposed to the vogue morality where governmental force is viewed as advisable.

The war of ideas is primarily and essentially on the moral plane. The vogue view is that it is moral to coerce (for a good cause of course); the truly moral view of allowing free-will is rarely stated. Mr. MacKenzie who encounters students who care about efficiency, not morality, might ask them why they care about efficiency if not for a moral end. Would any of them support an immoral policy if it were efficient?

Alex MacMillan June 15, 2007 at 10:17 am

Hans and Francisco: “Instead I just point out that I don’t approve of violence.” I think that is an excellent approach. I shall use it.

Allen Weingarten June 15, 2007 at 2:25 pm

To merely disprove of violence, without a theoretical foundation, has its limitations. For example, one approves of violence for self-defense, and in response to aggression, etc. Isn’t it better to advocate the non-initiation of force?

Robert June 16, 2007 at 6:55 am

Suppose DW MacKenzie were a serious person. Then he would not repeat slanderous gossip, that is, his (5).

Suppose DW MacKenzie knew what the referent to “Card and Krueger’s meta-analysis” was. Then he would know his (4), about the bulk of empirical studies, is difficult to sustain.

Suppose DW MacKenzie knew what “capital-reversing” (which is not the same thing as “technique reswitching”) was. Then he would know that it is doubtful that the remainder of his comment offers any valid counter to my point.

By the way, I don’t know that the typical mainstream economist differs from the typical Austrian on this point. Both refuse to do math.

DW MacKenzie June 16, 2007 at 12:28 pm

If Robert is serious, he will read the bit on anomalies in Car/Kreuger data on this link.

http://www.epionline.org/studies/epi_njfastfood_04-1996.pdf

this is an example what meant when I said that ‘some say’ – people who have tried to replicate C-K stuff have found problems. One can find additional ‘slanderous gossip’ in the American Economic Review, published by Neumark and Wascher. C-K data DOES so signs of measurement error. The errors found in C-K indicate at best slipshod research, at worst statistical fraud.

It is a simple historical fact that unemployment rates used to go down to the low single digits, before miw wage laws (1.4% is the lowest national unemployment rate I have seen). Some categories of labor still get in the low single digits (Asians aged 30-44). Besides, I have personally run too many regressions (and read too many other studies) on wage rates and employment to take C-K stuff seriously. Labor markets can clear in the low single digits level, we just need to ditch the current price floor.

As for mainstream economists being unwilling to do math, that is rediculous. The ones who complain most loudly about mathenomics and econometrics are the heterodox lefty types who focus on things like reswitching. I could get into more stuff, but I don’t think that Robert is about to let anyone confuse him with the facts.

D

Michael A. Clem June 17, 2007 at 1:03 am

I’m not sure what the best argument is, although if someone wants to bring up inflation and other distortions of the market by government, Austrians are usually quite ready to respond.
Suppose, for example, that the price of a good goes up dramatically, ground beef, for example. What does a person or family do in response? They can buy less ground beef (Perhaps turning to ground turkey instead), they can buy less of something else so that they can continue to buy the same amount of ground beef, or they can try to increase their income somehow so that they can keep buying the same amount of everything.
What does a business do when costs of some good or supply they use goes up? The very same thing the individual or family does. When the price of labor goes up, the business has few choices available to them to deal with it.
Minimum wages, like any other price control, is a case of government mandating a price, instead of letting the market determine the price. The government is essentially mandating a labor shortage where none exists.
The only real way to increase wages is to increase productivity, and government is unable to mandate productivity increases. However, more competition for labor would also increase wages. Thus, we could look at government regulations, licensing, tariffs, union control, and other things that make it harder to start or expand businesses and thus limit the competition for labor. Yes, progressive liberals have hurt the working man with all their noose-tightening restrictions on businesses. The irony of the progressive movement was that it increased the power of corporations and made it harder for smaller businesses to compete.

TLWP Sam June 17, 2007 at 1:52 am

More competition for labour increases wages? How does that work? A worker surplus should lead to lower wages whereas a worker shortage should lead to increased wages.

Michael A. Clem June 17, 2007 at 5:01 am

Um, TLWP, it’s just the other side of supply and demand. You can either reduce the supply of workers or you can increase the demand for workers–either would increase wages. Naturally, if more companies are competing for the same number of workers, wages are going to go up.

Anthony June 17, 2007 at 12:22 pm

Exactly. A wage is just a worker’s services’ price. If employers bid competitively for it, the price can increase. Unions in fact try to restrict worker supply in order to push up wages.

TLWP Sam June 17, 2007 at 6:31 pm

Doesn’t more competition equals lower prices? That’s the whole point of Capitalism? Maybe wages can rise nowadays because of specialised jobs which cannot just be filled by anyone. Employers would only compete for workers when there is a worker shortage in that particular area.

Scott D June 17, 2007 at 7:32 pm

TWLP, here’s the sentence you are referring to:

However, more competition for labor would also increase wages.

Think of it this way: Labor is a scarce resource. There are only so many people who are qualified and willing to perform a particular job at a particular time. Firms must compete for a piece of that labor supply by offering higher payment or otherwise giving greater enticement to work for them over another employer. “More competition for jobs” would be an accurate description of what you are talking about, an increase in the labor supply. We are talking about an increase in labor demand.

Francisco Torres June 17, 2007 at 8:25 pm

Employers would only compete for workers when there is a worker shortage in that particular area.

They would always compete. Even if the supply of workers outstrip demand, employers still HAVE to compete in order to obtain the most productive – more bang for the buck.

Minimum wage laws do limit the supply of workers, however it also makes market entry for the less skilled more difficult than if there were no such laws – basically, a market distortion.

TLWP Sam June 18, 2007 at 1:24 am

I’m confused here, employees at the end of the day has to compete with supply and demand factors at the end of the day just like self-employed people and businesses do. If a worker has unique skills that are in high demand then, yes, that person can expect to have employers compete against each other for his unique ability and hence drive up his would-be take home pay. But a worker who has skills, which most people happen to have, seeking work that plenty of other people just happen to be looking will have to bid down his would-be take home pay to get hired ahead of someone else. Maybe the great wow factor is ‘if your skills/qualifications are such that you can’t take home much then it’s a market signal that those skills aren’t in demand and it’s time to get new and better skills before the world leaves you behind’.

After why do companies outsource their job to poorer nation such as India? The main reason is that workers work for less and aren’t hampered by pesky trade unions.

I can’t believe that Price Makers and Price Takers are Socialist claptrap terms but represent supply and demand forces. It’s like someone selling a bottle of water in the desert versus selling a bottle of water in a rainstorm.

Scott D June 18, 2007 at 8:46 am

TWLP,

And what is the productivity of the worker who has skills everyone else has? My guess is that it will be quite low, because productivity is the actual value of labor, not skills. On the other hand, someone who is very unskilled but is very reliable, works quickly, or otherwise maximizes productivity will tend to see higher wages. The only people who will be “punished” with the lowest wages are those who are unskilled, unmotivated, will not learn, and are otherwise unable or unwilling to contribute higher productivity.

Acquiring new skills increases your productivity. “New skills” can mean formal education, training on the job or regular, old-fashioned life experience. It means that you yourself are learning how to create more wealth. Why should it be otherwise?

The other question that I am seeing is what happens when the there is a labor surplus. What if there are just not enough low-skill jobs to go around to all those low-skill people out there? Well, as you say, workers start to bid down their wages. This may continue until employers who do use those workers start to see significant profits from “exploiting” them. This is when competing firms spring up, eager to employ this excellent source of revenue. Eventually, the labor surplus disappears. The lowering of wages slows, stops, then starts to reverse. Once more, people get paid according to their marginal productivity, modified by time preference.

It’s so simple and logical that it’s difficult to see how it could be otherwise. It isn’t difficult to see how large firms could profit from a minimum wage that prevents the least productive people in society (often teenagers) from gaining skills and experience while working for small businesses that directly compete with the big firm.

Paul Marks June 18, 2007 at 12:26 pm

The price of a good or service is a matter of supply and demand.

“Service” includes the various forms of labor.

The price of the various forms of labor is sometimes called “wages”.

Wages levels (and conditions of work) are a matter of supply and demand. Price and wage controls cause economic distortions (harm) – because they are an attack on the price system.

It really is this simple. And an person who does not understand the above has no business calling himself (or herself) an “economist”.

Sadly the economics department at Princeton seems to include people who by any reasonable stretch should not be described as economists.

It is not that they are “non Austrian school economists” – they are not economists at all. They do not even understand the basics of the price system.

Michael A. Clem June 18, 2007 at 12:29 pm

Yes, it’s clear that you are still confused. Workers have to compete for jobs, and thus skilled workers have an advantage over unskilled workers. but businesses have to compete for workers, as well. Unions are good for union workers because they restrict employer options, but unions are not good for laborers in general. Now what would make employers be more competitive for workers in general and increase workers’ wages? More businesses competing for those workers. Thus, regulations that make it more difficult to start new businesses or to expand business ventures restrict the number of firms competing for workers and force workers to compete for lower wages than would prevail on the free market. Yes, even with those regulations in place, there’s still an equilibrium point where it becomes profitable to start a new business and to increase workers’ wages, but due to the government distortion, that point is now lower than it would otherwise be.

Eric Arthur June 21, 2007 at 6:19 am

Great article… It is a simple fact left wingers and other socialist leaning folks have used this issue to obtain votes from people who do not have a basic understanding of economics. I have written a similar article, posted on my blog here:

http://logicandreasonweb.blogspot.com/2007/06/federal-minimum-wage-bad-idea-becoming.html

Keep up the great work!

poepkatsjoes July 16, 2007 at 8:23 am

jaja wij hebben u door kevin avalon of zal ik zegge altera hahaha we hebben u door en u plannetje om de mensheid te veroveren gaat mooi niet door want je moet eerst langs mij en nick gerake tot binnenkort

poepkatsjoes July 16, 2007 at 8:26 am

jeah we know all your plans and i will ossure you that you will not archieve your goal you must pas me and nick kevin or chould i say altera :o i see you soon

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: