From: Matthew Gingell (gingell@gnat.com)
Date: Thu Apr 17 2003 - 16:07:53 MDT
Rafal Smigrodzki writes:
> But forbidding a below-minimum wage contract does not make the poor
> person more likely to have a "dignified existence". Quite the contrary, as
> evidenced by current levels of unemployment. Regardless of one's ideology,
> minimum wage laws are irrational, whether you want to benefit the rich or
> the poor.
As far as I'm aware there's no substantial empirical evidence linking
unemployment with increases in the minimum wage, if there were such a
strong effect as you suggest I'd expect such data to be easy to come
by. Certainly blaming the current economic downturn on the minimum
wage is foolish, several steps sillier than the choice of words you
call me on below.
But I do want to be clear I'm sympathetic to your position - it may
well be, in the final analysis, the minimum wage is simply not a very
useful tool for achieving the kind of ideological objective I
outlined in my previous post. I might add "irrational" is a loaded
term, that we disagree doesn't necessarily mean I'm foaming at the
mouth: One could look at the minimum wage as a legislative mechanism
for mitigating the enormous transaction costs inherent to collective
bargaining. (I liked Damien Sullivan's remark on this point further
up this thread very much.)
One point to be clear about though, and one that often doesn't get
taken seriously enough in this sort of abstract argument from
principle, is that while a particular policy tool might not be the
ideal choice from the perspective of an armchair theorist, it might
be the only one which is politically achievable. Even if we were to
agree the minimum wage is an inefficient means of achieving a goal,
one might still support it because it's here, it does some good, and
the superior alternatives aren't going to happen. If you actually
want to talk about the real world, you've got to deal with what is
and not what should be: I'd trade the minimum wage for a negative
payroll tax in an instant, but as a practical matter it's foolish to
let the good be the enemy of the just-about-adequate.
> Also, the use of "dignity" as a general catch-phrase to bolster one's
> ideology is manipulative. No nice person would oppose "dignity", and this is
> why so many want to twist the meaning of the word to sell the pet project.
> There is nothing undignified with sharing an apartment with others (as I do,
> to save money). If I can do it, the janitors can do it as well.
But that's the whole point of rhetoric, to make such a compelling
case no reasonable, nice person could possibly disagree!
What I mean by dignity is open to discussion, it's an admittedly
vague concept: I live in Manhattan where you can barely find a *room*
in a shared apartment for less than $1000 a month: If the woman who
cleans my place has to take the train in I don't see that as any
great insult to the rights of man. I would like her to be able to go
to the doctor when she gets sick though, or get her teeth fixed if
they start to hurt, and maybe even take her kid to a movie and buy
some popcorn every once in a while. Does that give you a better sense
what I'm getting at?
> There is much more dignity in honest work than in demanding
> freebies.
And who could possibly disagree with that. :)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 17 2003 - 16:15:12 MDT