Short answer: Yes. The minimum wage is already zero. That is how much someone earns if they choose not to work or can’t find a job. I don’t see how selling one’s time, energy, and talent for money (i.e. working at a job) is meaningfully different from selling tangible products or services like massages or driving lessons. I think it is obvious that forcing a minimum price on any of these sales can be harmful to both buyer and seller. The buyer (i.e. customer, or employer) is forced to pay more, or go without what they wanted to buy. The seller (i.e. business, or worker) already had the option of refusing to sell for a lower price if they so choose, and must now get by with fewer options. Minimum wage can result in some workers getting a raise, but it is likely to result in additional, undesirable changes in the workplace to compensate. It encourages employers to prefer advantaged, more skilled workers over more vulnerable, less-skilled workers. It artificially encourages outsourcing, automation, and can promote discrimination (as “undesirable” employees are prevented from “competing on price”). When an outsider forces two people to modify their working agreement to satisfy the (possibly well-intentioned, possibly not) demands of the outsider, this is undeniably coercive. I have made more tedious arguments here and there arguing against coercive minimum prices for labor (warning: snark).
This is a dishonest re-definition. A wage is what you must pay, as an employer, if you wish to employ people. A wage is not "what you don't earn when you don't work". Minimum wage is there simply to prevent the type of abuse that is possible by employers when/if people are very desperate for work. It is a restriction on employers. It is no more coercive than myriad other taxes; I see no difference. No one likes taxes; that's not a good enough reason to eliminate them. I'll read your links and respond more later probably; busy week :-) [edit] It appears to me that your argument is exactly the same as an argument calling for zero taxes, on employers at least. ANY extra expense might keep an employer from employing someone, therefore it's wrong. Your argument devolves into "all taxes on employers are wrong".The minimum wage is already zero. That is how much someone earns if they choose not to work or can’t find a job.
This is a dishonest re-definition.
You are right; thanks for the catch. Perhaps I should use the term "income," but it is still missing the point. The idea I want to hint at is that increasing minimum wage does not automatically mean workers earn more. The standard economic objection is that minimum wage reduces employment opportunity and increases unemployment.the type of abuse that is possible by employers when/if people are very desperate for work
Would you support minimum prices on goods for sale when a business is very desperate for revenue? Do you use the term "abuse" when businesses offer very low prices? Consider that the "business" could be a single person and the "product" could be math lessons.[Minimum wage] is a restriction on employers.
It is enforced that way, but it seems clear to me that it effectively restricts both sides. It makes it illegal for workers to take jobs that pay below a certain level — in other words, from selling their assets (time, energy, talent) at certain prices.
Selling products at a loss to drive competition from the market is a common tactic. I'm not sure but I believe that's illegal in some circumstances. What I don't understand is why you believe the situations to be equivalent. A low wage is the employer harming or abusing the employee; a low price is the employer harming or abusing himself.Would you support minimum prices on goods for sale when a business is very desperate for revenue?
Here are some illustrations of the principle of minimum wage: • People who beg in the street sometimes receive donations of small change. These small payments won't help them much. Suppose they are prohibited from accepting donations less than US$10, will they will be better off? • Suppose coffee shops sell cups of coffee for an average price of $2. There are so many coffee shops competing for business that they can barely cover their expenses. Coffee shops sometimes become insolvent and close. The Coalition of Coffee Vendors proposes a law to support this important and beloved industry. From now on, the minimum legal price of a cup of coffee will be $5. Most coffee shops will be hurt, isn't that obvious? But some will do well — those which sold premium coffee in luxurious shops which were already charging close to or more than $5. (You won't be surprised to learn that these shops have a lot of influence with the Coalition of Coffee Vendors.) The law causes more harm than good. Therefore it is a bad law, aside from the fact that dictating how coffee shops and customers interact is nosy, paternalistic, and coercive. The chief practical negative of minimum wage is increased unemployment among the most vulnerable workers, who would most benefit from greater access to employment. This is a realistic concern (emphasis added).It is no more coercive than myriad other taxes
Agreed. And surely we can agree that all taxes have the negative effect of depriving the taxpayers of some funds. To decide if the tax, or a law, is good or not, we have to do a cost-benefit analysis. The fact that coercion must be used to collect taxes or enforce laws is a negative, but one that people might decide is worthwhile given the benefits. The number of unemployed youth in July 2013 was 3.8 million, compared with 4.0 million
a year ago. The youth unemployment rate was 16.3 percent in July 2013. Among the major
demographic groups, unemployment rates were lower than a year earlier in July for young
women (14.8 percent) and whites (13.9 percent), while jobless rates changed little for
young men (17.6 percent), blacks (28.2 percent), Asians (15.0 percent), and Hispanics
(18.1 percent).
Just FYI - the NZ minimum wage is $14.25; our current government (the right-wing party is in power now) have suggested it may rise to $15. Youth unemployment is a problem here, but not a major one, as far as I know.
First bullet - you are seriously equating people who give to beggers in the street with employers? Really? Second bullet - you are trying to equate minimum price with minimum wage. Apples/oranges. So you support a zero minimum wage because you believe it prevents unemployment? Well sure, of course it does, because with a minimum wage, you're not allowing unfair employment. That's kinda the point.
you are seriously equating people who give to beggers in the street with employers?
No.Really?
Really, no. I don't think that giving charity to strangers constitutes an employer/employee relationship.you are trying to equate minimum price with minimum wage. Apples/oranges.
A price is an amount of money given in payment for something. A wage is a price for labor. Consider that the "business" could be a single person and the "product" could be math lessons.So you support a zero minimum wage because you believe it prevents unemployment?
Alas, no.