Minimum Wage

This has been posted before I think in the economics section many a time, and I agree with Milton.

In truth, there is only one way to regard a minimum wage law: it is compulsory unemployment, period. The law says: it is illegal, and therefore criminal, for anyone to hire anyone else below the level of X dollars an hour. This means, plainly and simply, that a large number of free and voluntary wage contracts are now outlawed and hence that there will be a large amount of unemployment. Remember that the minimum wage law provides no jobs; it only outlaws them; and outlawed jobs are the inevitable result.

- Murray Rothbard

Also, by what right can the state mandate that two people, who both voluntarily enter an agreement for a job that pays X amount per hour, may not enter into that contract? And why? Clearly, if the person seeking that job would agree to it, they are doing it because it is beneficial to them. Alas, say the statists, that may be, but government knows better than its citizens what is in their self interest and what is not. I say that's ridiculous. Survival and surviving well is our number one priority as humans. If someone wants to work a job, and someone is willing to offer it to them, both parties clearly think it's worthwhile; the state has no right to say otherwise.

What is the objection to the minimum wage if it is coupled with a full-employment program?

At 5/5/2012 11:59:57 PM, FREEDO wrote:
What is the objection to the minimum wage if it is coupled with a full-employment program?

Probably because a full-employment program cannot exist.

At 5/6/2012 12:22:21 AM, darkkermit wrote:

At 5/5/2012 11:59:57 PM, FREEDO wrote:
What is the objection to the minimum wage if it is coupled with a full-employment program?

Probably because a full-employment program cannot exist.

Why not?

At 5/6/2012 12:26:31 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 5/6/2012 12:22:21 AM, darkkermit wrote:

At 5/5/2012 11:59:57 PM, FREEDO wrote:
What is the objection to the minimum wage if it is coupled with a full-employment program?

Probably because a full-employment program cannot exist.

Why not?

#1) A lot of unemployment is "voluntary". What I mean by that is that is while people can indeed be looking for jobs and not finding them, it's because he/she is looking for jobs with high paying salaries. This is basic search theory.

Once I graduate with a degree in chemical engineering, I'm not going to be looking for a Mcdonald's job. I'll keep job hunting until I find a job with a satisfactory salary. Since my parents have enough wealth, I can afford this unemployment.

#2) It will take time for one to organize the labor force and restructure it due to changes in unemployment rate. For example If the unemployment rate is 10%, the employment program might only have enough job slots for 5%. If it wants to increase the slots from 5% to 10%, then it needs to hire accountants, supervisory, etc. and get them orientated before it can do any hiring decisions.

#3) If your creating an employment program, then this mean that the cost of labor must necessarily rise. Basic supply and demand. Employers have to increase wages in order to attract new workers. However at the same time, this means employers have to hire few workers. Basically the employment program will "crowd out" private sector employment.

#4) The program will not just hire the unemployed, but those not considered part of the labor force who are attracted to the employment program and people from other business sectors.

At 5/6/2012 12:46:33 AM, darkkermit wrote:

At 5/6/2012 12:26:31 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 5/6/2012 12:22:21 AM, darkkermit wrote:

At 5/5/2012 11:59:57 PM, FREEDO wrote:
What is the objection to the minimum wage if it is coupled with a full-employment program?

Probably because a full-employment program cannot exist.

Why not?

#1) A lot of unemployment is "voluntary". What I mean by that is that is while people can indeed be looking for jobs and not finding them, it's because he/she is looking for jobs with high paying salaries. This is basic search theory.

Once I graduate with a degree in chemical engineering, I'm not going to be looking for a Mcdonald's job. I'll keep job hunting until I find a job with a satisfactory salary. Since my parents have enough wealth, I can afford this unemployment.

That's alright. It's only seeking to provide a job for those who want it. And, preferably, it would provide a living wage.

#2) It will take time for one to organize the labor force and restructure it due to changes in unemployment rate. For example If the unemployment rate is 10%, the employment program might only have enough job slots for 5%. If it wants to increase the slots from 5% to 10%, then it needs to hire accountants, supervisory, etc. and get them orientated before it can do any hiring decisions.

It would have to be mostly labor jobs. Infrastructure projects would be created to account for all the people who get on board.

#3) If your creating an employment program, then this mean that the cost of labor must necessarily rise. Basic supply and demand. Employers have to increase wages in order to attract new workers. However at the same time, this means employers have to hire few workers. Basically the employment program will "crowd out" private sector employment.

Not everyone is going to want the jobs that the program provides. All the higher-paying and more skilled jobs would be left to the private sector.

#4) The program will not just hire the unemployed, but those not considered part of the labor force who are attracted to the employment program and people from other business sectors.

As I said for point 3.

And, lastly, I think you've made some good and fair points about how it might not work as efficiently as a like or might create more problems than it solves, but you haven't addressed your original comment that I inquired about which was that it could not be accomplished.

At 5/5/2012 10:29:49 PM, jat93 wrote:
Alas, say the statists, that may be, but government knows better than its citizens what is in their self interest and what is not. I say that's ridiculous.

1. If you're not an anarchist, you're a statist. Even minarchists are technically statists.

2. The government is supposed to refer to individuals that represent the wants and needs of citizens, so it makes sense that the government would claim to know what's in the best interest of its citizens. Whether politicians actually act in the best interest of their constituents is another story. I'm pretty sure most people (including Republicans) would favor minimum wage laws, so State mandates actually indicate that our represenative government is working properly in this wonderful democratic republic we have, since that's what the people want. Just sayin.

At 5/6/2012 12:59:17 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 5/6/2012 12:46:33 AM, darkkermit wrote:

At 5/6/2012 12:26:31 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 5/6/2012 12:22:21 AM, darkkermit wrote:

At 5/5/2012 11:59:57 PM, FREEDO wrote:
What is the objection to the minimum wage if it is coupled with a full-employment program?

Probably because a full-employment program cannot exist.

Why not?

#1) A lot of unemployment is "voluntary". What I mean by that is that is while people can indeed be looking for jobs and not finding them, it's because he/she is looking for jobs with high paying salaries. This is basic search theory.

Once I graduate with a degree in chemical engineering, I'm not going to be looking for a Mcdonald's job. I'll keep job hunting until I find a job with a satisfactory salary. Since my parents have enough wealth, I can afford this unemployment.

That's alright. It's only seeking to provide a job for those who want it. And, preferably, it would provide a living wage.

A "living wage" is relative. What is considered a "living wage"? In theory I could survive on nothing but ramen.

I also forgot to mention that not everybody would necessarily know about the employment program.

#2) It will take time for one to organize the labor force and restructure it due to changes in unemployment rate. For example If the unemployment rate is 10%, the employment program might only have enough job slots for 5%. If it wants to increase the slots from 5% to 10%, then it needs to hire accountants, supervisory, etc. and get them orientated before it can do any hiring decisions.

It would have to be mostly labor jobs. Infrastructure projects would be created to account for all the people who get on board.

You do realize that there is no such thing as a "shovel-ready" project. If your doing infrastructure project that requires in addition to the administrative overhead engineers, environmental management, and city planners.

You still need to have administrative costs and overhead when its just "labor jobs".

#3) If your creating an employment program, then this mean that the cost of labor must necessarily rise. Basic supply and demand. Employers have to increase wages in order to attract new workers. However at the same time, this means employers have to hire few workers. Basically the employment program will "crowd out" private sector employment.

Not everyone is going to want the jobs that the program provides. All the higher-paying and more skilled jobs would be left to the private sector.

That doesn't answer my crowding out problem. I'm saying this programs will cause labor costs to increase which will make the program unable to achieve it's desired intention 100% of the time. Economist Stigler in his efficiency wages shows that in order to have full employment, real wages would have to go to infinity:
http://upload.wikimedia.org...

#4) The program will not just hire the unemployed, but those not considered part of the labor force who are attracted to the employment program and people from other business sectors.

As I said for point 3.

The point is that its inefficient and crowds out the business sector.

And, lastly, I think you've made some good and fair points about how it might not work as efficiently as a like or might create more problems than it solves, but you haven't addressed your original comment that I inquired about which was that it could not be accomplished.

I gave you the answer right there.

Oh yea, and one important fact that I also forgot to mention was that how do you expect to finance this? If you use taxpayer money to finance it, then you do realize that means less spending in the private sector, which means the private sector would have to lay off people. This is kind of huge.

Also, remember how government workers have a tendency to unionize.

In the UK, the living wage is defined as the minimum amount of money required to live with:

3 cooked meals a day
A physical place to live (not "outside", for example. A flat)
Heating and water
At least 1 day out a week
The cost of getting to a job interview twice a week.

This was according to a study a few years ago, and it found that, for a Londoner, the job allowance & unemployment benefits was not enough to sustain this lifestyle (i.e. the bare minimum). This was when it was said these benefits were too high.

At 5/5/2012 10:29:49 PM, jat93 wrote:
Also, by what right can the state mandate that two people, who both voluntarily enter an agreement for a job that pays X amount per hour, may not enter into that contract? And why? Clearly, if the person seeking that job would agree to it, they are doing it because it is beneficial to them. Alas, say the statists, that may be, but government knows better than its citizens what is in their self interest and what is not. I say that's ridiculous. Survival and surviving well is our number one priority as humans. If someone wants to work a job, and someone is willing to offer it to them, both parties clearly think it's worthwhile; the state has no right to say otherwise.

Seems to me that this argument would allow for the return of child labor, too. Is that an intended consequence?

At 5/6/2012 5:49:41 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 5/5/2012 10:29:49 PM, jat93 wrote:
Also, by what right can the state mandate that two people, who both voluntarily enter an agreement for a job that pays X amount per hour, may not enter into that contract? And why? Clearly, if the person seeking that job would agree to it, they are doing it because it is beneficial to them. Alas, say the statists, that may be, but government knows better than its citizens what is in their self interest and what is not. I say that's ridiculous. Survival and surviving well is our number one priority as humans. If someone wants to work a job, and someone is willing to offer it to them, both parties clearly think it's worthwhile; the state has no right to say otherwise.

Seems to me that this argument would allow for the return of child labor, too. Is that an intended consequence?

Child labor is a positive force for those children stuck in poverty. The children who actually have job prospects and education prospects will not go into child labour. It will only effect those who are stuck in poverty and cannot get out. As a result, it would let them learn an early skill set at a younger age and possibly move up the socio-economic ladder later on. Also, it would generate extra money for the poor families.

In reality, child labour is one of the best things that have happened for children in countries such as China.

At 5/6/2012 8:04:53 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 5/6/2012 5:49:41 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 5/5/2012 10:29:49 PM, jat93 wrote:
Also, by what right can the state mandate that two people, who both voluntarily enter an agreement for a job that pays X amount per hour, may not enter into that contract? And why? Clearly, if the person seeking that job would agree to it, they are doing it because it is beneficial to them. Alas, say the statists, that may be, but government knows better than its citizens what is in their self interest and what is not. I say that's ridiculous. Survival and surviving well is our number one priority as humans. If someone wants to work a job, and someone is willing to offer it to them, both parties clearly think it's worthwhile; the state has no right to say otherwise.

Seems to me that this argument would allow for the return of child labor, too. Is that an intended consequence?

Child labor is a positive force for those children stuck in poverty. The children who actually have job prospects and education prospects will not go into child labour. It will only effect those who are stuck in poverty and cannot get out. As a result, it would let them learn an early skill set at a younger age and possibly move up the socio-economic ladder later on. Also, it would generate extra money for the poor families.

In reality, child labour is one of the best things that have happened for children in countries such as China.

It doesn't help children move out of poverty. It keeps them in low-end jobs because they will not ave an education. Child labor empirically never helped any families move out of poverty; it just provided them with more money to purchase food.

At 5/6/2012 8:04:53 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 5/6/2012 5:49:41 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 5/5/2012 10:29:49 PM, jat93 wrote:
Also, by what right can the state mandate that two people, who both voluntarily enter an agreement for a job that pays X amount per hour, may not enter into that contract? And why? Clearly, if the person seeking that job would agree to it, they are doing it because it is beneficial to them. Alas, say the statists, that may be, but government knows better than its citizens what is in their self interest and what is not. I say that's ridiculous. Survival and surviving well is our number one priority as humans. If someone wants to work a job, and someone is willing to offer it to them, both parties clearly think it's worthwhile; the state has no right to say otherwise.

Seems to me that this argument would allow for the return of child labor, too. Is that an intended consequence?

Child labor is a positive force for those children stuck in poverty. The children who actually have job prospects and education prospects will not go into child labour. It will only effect those who are stuck in poverty and cannot get out. As a result, it would let them learn an early skill set at a younger age and possibly move up the socio-economic ladder later on. Also, it would generate extra money for the poor families.

In reality, child labour is one of the best things that have happened for children in countries such as China.

Yes, after I made my post I realized I should have said: unregulated child labor.

At 5/6/2012 8:09:44 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

At 5/6/2012 8:04:53 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 5/6/2012 5:49:41 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 5/5/2012 10:29:49 PM, jat93 wrote:
Also, by what right can the state mandate that two people, who both voluntarily enter an agreement for a job that pays X amount per hour, may not enter into that contract? And why? Clearly, if the person seeking that job would agree to it, they are doing it because it is beneficial to them. Alas, say the statists, that may be, but government knows better than its citizens what is in their self interest and what is not. I say that's ridiculous. Survival and surviving well is our number one priority as humans. If someone wants to work a job, and someone is willing to offer it to them, both parties clearly think it's worthwhile; the state has no right to say otherwise.

Seems to me that this argument would allow for the return of child labor, too. Is that an intended consequence?

Child labor is a positive force for those children stuck in poverty. The children who actually have job prospects and education prospects will not go into child labour. It will only effect those who are stuck in poverty and cannot get out. As a result, it would let them learn an early skill set at a younger age and possibly move up the socio-economic ladder later on. Also, it would generate extra money for the poor families.

In reality, child labour is one of the best things that have happened for children in countries such as China.

It doesn't help children move out of poverty. It keeps them in low-end jobs because they will not ave an education. Child labor empirically never helped any families move out of poverty; it just provided them with more money to purchase food.

A child can work and still have an education; many students in highschool hold jobs, as does college students. If they are willing, they should be allowed to work.

At 5/6/2012 9:23:34 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/6/2012 8:09:44 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

At 5/6/2012 8:04:53 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 5/6/2012 5:49:41 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 5/5/2012 10:29:49 PM, jat93 wrote:
Also, by what right can the state mandate that two people, who both voluntarily enter an agreement for a job that pays X amount per hour, may not enter into that contract? And why? Clearly, if the person seeking that job would agree to it, they are doing it because it is beneficial to them. Alas, say the statists, that may be, but government knows better than its citizens what is in their self interest and what is not. I say that's ridiculous. Survival and surviving well is our number one priority as humans. If someone wants to work a job, and someone is willing to offer it to them, both parties clearly think it's worthwhile; the state has no right to say otherwise.

Seems to me that this argument would allow for the return of child labor, too. Is that an intended consequence?

Child labor is a positive force for those children stuck in poverty. The children who actually have job prospects and education prospects will not go into child labour. It will only effect those who are stuck in poverty and cannot get out. As a result, it would let them learn an early skill set at a younger age and possibly move up the socio-economic ladder later on. Also, it would generate extra money for the poor families.

In reality, child labour is one of the best things that have happened for children in countries such as China.

It doesn't help children move out of poverty. It keeps them in low-end jobs because they will not ave an education. Child labor empirically never helped any families move out of poverty; it just provided them with more money to purchase food.

A child can work and still have an education; many students in highschool hold jobs, as does college students. If they are willing, they should be allowed to work.

Child labor was not done concurrently with education. Children were forced to drop out of school in order to work, so they received no education.

"If they are willing" turns into parental pressure.

At 5/6/2012 8:09:44 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

At 5/6/2012 8:04:53 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 5/6/2012 5:49:41 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 5/5/2012 10:29:49 PM, jat93 wrote:
Also, by what right can the state mandate that two people, who both voluntarily enter an agreement for a job that pays X amount per hour, may not enter into that contract? And why? Clearly, if the person seeking that job would agree to it, they are doing it because it is beneficial to them. Alas, say the statists, that may be, but government knows better than its citizens what is in their self interest and what is not. I say that's ridiculous. Survival and surviving well is our number one priority as humans. If someone wants to work a job, and someone is willing to offer it to them, both parties clearly think it's worthwhile; the state has no right to say otherwise.

Seems to me that this argument would allow for the return of child labor, too. Is that an intended consequence?

Child labor is a positive force for those children stuck in poverty. The children who actually have job prospects and education prospects will not go into child labour. It will only effect those who are stuck in poverty and cannot get out. As a result, it would let them learn an early skill set at a younger age and possibly move up the socio-economic ladder later on. Also, it would generate extra money for the poor families.

In reality, child labour is one of the best things that have happened for children in countries such as China.

It doesn't help children move out of poverty. It keeps them in low-end jobs because they will not ave an education. Child labor empirically never helped any families move out of poverty; it just provided them with more money to purchase food.

Those children who actually accept child labour as full time jobs have no educational prospects.

Also, even if your statement was true (likely not), providing your family with extra money for food is better than being dead weight.

At 5/6/2012 1:12:04 AM, Danielle wrote:

At 5/5/2012 10:29:49 PM, jat93 wrote:
Alas, say the statists, that may be, but government knows better than its citizens what is in their self interest and what is not. I say that's ridiculous.

1. If you're not an anarchist, you're a statist. Even minarchists are technically statists.

2. The government is supposed to refer to individuals that represent the wants and needs of citizens, so it makes sense that the government would claim to know what's in the best interest of its citizens. Whether politicians actually act in the best interest of their constituents is another story. I'm pretty sure most people (including Republicans) would favor minimum wage laws, so State mandates actually indicate that our represenative government is working properly in this wonderful democratic republic we have, since that's what the people want. Just sayin.

Yeah they are just going with majority want(s).

But most republicans favor a lower Minimum wage.

At 5/6/2012 9:36:24 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 5/6/2012 8:09:44 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

At 5/6/2012 8:04:53 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 5/6/2012 5:49:41 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 5/5/2012 10:29:49 PM, jat93 wrote:
Also, by what right can the state mandate that two people, who both voluntarily enter an agreement for a job that pays X amount per hour, may not enter into that contract? And why? Clearly, if the person seeking that job would agree to it, they are doing it because it is beneficial to them. Alas, say the statists, that may be, but government knows better than its citizens what is in their self interest and what is not. I say that's ridiculous. Survival and surviving well is our number one priority as humans. If someone wants to work a job, and someone is willing to offer it to them, both parties clearly think it's worthwhile; the state has no right to say otherwise.

Seems to me that this argument would allow for the return of child labor, too. Is that an intended consequence?

Child labor is a positive force for those children stuck in poverty. The children who actually have job prospects and education prospects will not go into child labour. It will only effect those who are stuck in poverty and cannot get out. As a result, it would let them learn an early skill set at a younger age and possibly move up the socio-economic ladder later on. Also, it would generate extra money for the poor families.

In reality, child labour is one of the best things that have happened for children in countries such as China.

It doesn't help children move out of poverty. It keeps them in low-end jobs because they will not ave an education. Child labor empirically never helped any families move out of poverty; it just provided them with more money to purchase food.

Those children who actually accept child labour as full time jobs have no educational prospects.

That was my point.

Also, even if your statement was true (likely not), providing your family with extra money for food is better than being dead weight.

They're not "dead weight". If the parents can find some other means of transmitting their genes to the next generations, they should do that if they are not willing to provide for their children.

Moreover, your argument was that it helps them advance. My argument was countering that, and this analysis basically concedes to that.

At 5/6/2012 9:36:24 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 5/6/2012 8:09:44 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

At 5/6/2012 8:04:53 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 5/6/2012 5:49:41 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 5/5/2012 10:29:49 PM, jat93 wrote:
Also, by what right can the state mandate that two people, who both voluntarily enter an agreement for a job that pays X amount per hour, may not enter into that contract? And why? Clearly, if the person seeking that job would agree to it, they are doing it because it is beneficial to them. Alas, say the statists, that may be, but government knows better than its citizens what is in their self interest and what is not. I say that's ridiculous. Survival and surviving well is our number one priority as humans. If someone wants to work a job, and someone is willing to offer it to them, both parties clearly think it's worthwhile; the state has no right to say otherwise.

Seems to me that this argument would allow for the return of child labor, too. Is that an intended consequence?

Child labor is a positive force for those children stuck in poverty. The children who actually have job prospects and education prospects will not go into child labour. It will only effect those who are stuck in poverty and cannot get out. As a result, it would let them learn an early skill set at a younger age and possibly move up the socio-economic ladder later on. Also, it would generate extra money for the poor families.

In reality, child labour is one of the best things that have happened for children in countries such as China.

It doesn't help children move out of poverty. It keeps them in low-end jobs because they will not ave an education. Child labor empirically never helped any families move out of poverty; it just provided them with more money to purchase food.

Those children who actually accept child labour as full time jobs have no educational prospects.

Also, even if your statement was true (likely not), providing your family with extra money for food is better than being dead weight.

Prosperity circle:

One spends money to get a good education.
One uses said education to get a better job.
One earns more money from a better job.
From the better job, one can spend money to get someone else (i.e. offspring) through education.
Repeat the virtuous cycle.

Antiprosperity cycle:

One gets a job before finishing education.
One has to get a worse job from having worse education.
The worse job means that one earns less.
From earning less, one cannot give money to help another (i.e. offspring) to get a better education, and they have to drop out of education earlier.
Repeat the vicious cycle.

In Congress, Democrat Tom Harkin (Iowa) introducted a bill to raise the minimum wage to $9.80 gradually and increase the minimum wage for tipped workers.

It was estimated that this bill would create 100,000 full time jobs because of increases in consumer spending, and an increase of $25 billion in GDP.

http://www.cnn.com...

Small changes such as this in the minimum wage it has been concluded do not slow down job creation, because the increase in demand fuels a stronger demand market.

http://raisetheminimumwage.org...

At 5/6/2012 10:29:52 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

At 5/6/2012 9:36:24 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 5/6/2012 8:09:44 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

At 5/6/2012 8:04:53 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 5/6/2012 5:49:41 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 5/5/2012 10:29:49 PM, jat93 wrote:
Also, by what right can the state mandate that two people, who both voluntarily enter an agreement for a job that pays X amount per hour, may not enter into that contract? And why? Clearly, if the person seeking that job would agree to it, they are doing it because it is beneficial to them. Alas, say the statists, that may be, but government knows better than its citizens what is in their self interest and what is not. I say that's ridiculous. Survival and surviving well is our number one priority as humans. If someone wants to work a job, and someone is willing to offer it to them, both parties clearly think it's worthwhile; the state has no right to say otherwise.

Seems to me that this argument would allow for the return of child labor, too. Is that an intended consequence?

Child labor is a positive force for those children stuck in poverty. The children who actually have job prospects and education prospects will not go into child labour. It will only effect those who are stuck in poverty and cannot get out. As a result, it would let them learn an early skill set at a younger age and possibly move up the socio-economic ladder later on. Also, it would generate extra money for the poor families.

In reality, child labour is one of the best things that have happened for children in countries such as China.

It doesn't help children move out of poverty. It keeps them in low-end jobs because they will not ave an education. Child labor empirically never helped any families move out of poverty; it just provided them with more money to purchase food.

Those children who actually accept child labour as full time jobs have no educational prospects.

Also, even if your statement was true (likely not), providing your family with extra money for food is better than being dead weight.

Prosperity circle:

One spends money to get a good education.
One uses said education to get a better job.
One earns more money from a better job.
From the better job, one can spend money to get someone else (i.e. offspring) through education.
Repeat the virtuous cycle.

Antiprosperity cycle:

One gets a job before finishing education.
One has to get a worse job from having worse education.
The worse job means that one earns less.
From earning less, one cannot give money to help another (i.e. offspring) to get a better education, and they have to drop out of education earlier.
Repeat the vicious cycle.

In a free society, one can use human capital contracts or loans to finance education. The cost of education will also go down because the cost of online education will become much cheaper then traditional education.

At 5/6/2012 10:12:43 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

At 5/6/2012 9:36:24 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 5/6/2012 8:09:44 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

At 5/6/2012 8:04:53 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 5/6/2012 5:49:41 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 5/5/2012 10:29:49 PM, jat93 wrote:
Also, by what right can the state mandate that two people, who both voluntarily enter an agreement for a job that pays X amount per hour, may not enter into that contract? And why? Clearly, if the person seeking that job would agree to it, they are doing it because it is beneficial to them. Alas, say the statists, that may be, but government knows better than its citizens what is in their self interest and what is not. I say that's ridiculous. Survival and surviving well is our number one priority as humans. If someone wants to work a job, and someone is willing to offer it to them, both parties clearly think it's worthwhile; the state has no right to say otherwise.

Seems to me that this argument would allow for the return of child labor, too. Is that an intended consequence?

Child labor is a positive force for those children stuck in poverty. The children who actually have job prospects and education prospects will not go into child labour. It will only effect those who are stuck in poverty and cannot get out. As a result, it would let them learn an early skill set at a younger age and possibly move up the socio-economic ladder later on. Also, it would generate extra money for the poor families.

In reality, child labour is one of the best things that have happened for children in countries such as China.

It doesn't help children move out of poverty. It keeps them in low-end jobs because they will not ave an education. Child labor empirically never helped any families move out of poverty; it just provided them with more money to purchase food.

Those children who actually accept child labour as full time jobs have no educational prospects.

That was my point.

No. Your point was that it won't let them have an education and is therefore bad. I countered that by saying that these children don't have educational prospects and you agreed.

Also, even if your statement was true (likely not), providing your family with extra money for food is better than being dead weight.

They're not "dead weight". If the parents can find some other means of transmitting their genes to the next generations, they should do that if they are not willing to provide for their children.

What exactly is your point here?

Children who go into jobs to learn a trade at an early age will economically benefit their family.

Moreover, your argument was that it helps them advance. My argument was countering that, and this analysis basically concedes to that.

Not at all. Increases in wealth and socio-economic level are directly related to finding a job.

These jobs can give appropriate skills later on in life to advance classes and gain more wealth.

At 5/6/2012 12:28:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 5/6/2012 10:12:43 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

At 5/6/2012 9:36:24 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 5/6/2012 8:09:44 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

At 5/6/2012 8:04:53 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 5/6/2012 5:49:41 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 5/5/2012 10:29:49 PM, jat93 wrote:
Also, by what right can the state mandate that two people, who both voluntarily enter an agreement for a job that pays X amount per hour, may not enter into that contract? And why? Clearly, if the person seeking that job would agree to it, they are doing it because it is beneficial to them. Alas, say the statists, that may be, but government knows better than its citizens what is in their self interest and what is not. I say that's ridiculous. Survival and surviving well is our number one priority as humans. If someone wants to work a job, and someone is willing to offer it to them, both parties clearly think it's worthwhile; the state has no right to say otherwise.

Seems to me that this argument would allow for the return of child labor, too. Is that an intended consequence?

Child labor is a positive force for those children stuck in poverty. The children who actually have job prospects and education prospects will not go into child labour. It will only effect those who are stuck in poverty and cannot get out. As a result, it would let them learn an early skill set at a younger age and possibly move up the socio-economic ladder later on. Also, it would generate extra money for the poor families.

In reality, child labour is one of the best things that have happened for children in countries such as China.

It doesn't help children move out of poverty. It keeps them in low-end jobs because they will not ave an education. Child labor empirically never helped any families move out of poverty; it just provided them with more money to purchase food.

Those children who actually accept child labour as full time jobs have no educational prospects.

That was my point.

No. Your point was that it won't let them have an education and is therefore bad. I countered that by saying that these children don't have educational prospects and you agreed.

LOL, what? The reason that they don't have educational prospects is because they are impoverished and were forced to work. This is empirically proven by examining history.

Also, even if your statement was true (likely not), providing your family with extra money for food is better than being dead weight.

They're not "dead weight". If the parents can find some other means of transmitting their genes to the next generations, they should do that if they are not willing to provide for their children.

What exactly is your point here?

They're already providing a service.

Children who go into jobs to learn a trade at an early age will economically benefit their family.

The effect is minimal and it does not benefit their families in the future.

Moreover, your argument was that it helps them advance. My argument was countering that, and this analysis basically concedes to that.

Not at all. Increases in wealth and socio-economic level are directly related to finding a job.

These jobs can give appropriate skills later on in life to advance classes and gain more wealth.

One needs education in order to obtain a better job, especially in the modern world.

At 5/6/2012 11:55:48 AM, Contra wrote:
In Congress, Democrat Tom Harkin (Iowa) introducted a bill to raise the minimum wage to $9.80 gradually and increase the minimum wage for tipped workers.

It was estimated that this bill would create 100,000 full time jobs because of increases in consumer spending, and an increase of $25 billion in GDP.

The last several times minimum wage was increased unemployment increased. When minimum wage was left alone unemployment increased. If we want to create jobs we need to either decrease minimum wage to match the real wage (or come as close as possible), or hold off on increasing minimum wage till the real wage catches up.

http://www.cnn.com...

Small changes such as this in the minimum wage it has been concluded do not slow down job creation, because the increase in demand fuels a stronger demand market.

http://raisetheminimumwage.org...

Economists generally believe that an increase in minimum wage decreases job growth, and increases unemployment.

At 5/6/2012 10:29:52 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Prosperity circle:

One spends money to get a good education.
One uses said education to get a better job.
One earns more money from a better job.
From the better job, one can spend money to get someone else (i.e. offspring) through education.
Repeat the virtuous cycle.

Antiprosperity cycle:

One gets a job before finishing education.
One has to get a worse job from having worse education.
The worse job means that one earns less.
From earning less, one cannot give money to help another (i.e. offspring) to get a better education, and they have to drop out of education earlier.
Repeat the vicious cycle.

-Family produces more capitol than they require to live through diligent work
-Family has enough capitol to educate one or more members of the family
-Educated members of the family allow for an increase of money to flow into the family, increasing educational opportunities for other family members.
-Repeat until society is infinitely competitive and rich-poor gap reduced.
-??????
-PROFIT and Space Exploration. Advancement of mankind.

At 5/6/2012 11:55:48 AM, Contra wrote:
In Congress, Democrat Tom Harkin (Iowa) introducted a bill to raise the minimum wage to $9.80 gradually and increase the minimum wage for tipped workers.

It was estimated that this bill would create 100,000 full time jobs because of increases in consumer spending, and an increase of $25 billion in GDP.

http://www.cnn.com...

If a raise in the minimum wage has no effect, why not make it 100$? The other minimum wage increases lead to increases unemployment and higher prices, does that not apply to this one too? All logical questions.

Small changes such as this in the minimum wage it has been concluded do not slow down job creation, because the increase in demand fuels a stronger demand market.

http://raisetheminimumwage.org...

Most economists would disagree. http://epionline.org...

At 5/6/2012 2:23:39 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Oh yea, and one important fact that I also forgot to mention was that how do you expect to finance this? If you use taxpayer money to finance it, then you do realize that means less spending in the private sector, which means the private sector would have to lay off people. This is kind of huge.

Have you seen my thread on an alternative to taxation?
http://www.debate.org...