The market wage rate tends toward a height at which all those eager to earn wages get jobs and all those eager to employ workers can hire as many as they want. It tends toward the establishment of what is nowadays called full employment. Where there is neither government nor union interference with the labor market, there is only voluntary or catallactic unemployment. But as soon as external pressure and compulsion, be it on the part of the government or on the part of the unions, tries to fix wage rates at a higher point, institutional unemployment emerges. While there prevails on the unhampered labor market a tendency for catallactic unemployment to disappear, institutional unemployment cannot disappear as long as the government or the unions are successful in the enforcement of their fiat. If the minimum wage rate refers only to a part of the various occupations while other sectors of the labor market are left free, those losing their jobs on its account enter the free branches of business and increase the supply of labor in them. When unionism was restricted to skilled labor mainly, the wage rise achieved by the unions did not lead to institutional unemployment. It merely lowered the height of wage rates in those branches in which there were no efficient unions or no unions at all. The corollary of the rise in wages for organized workers was a drop in wages for unorganized workers. But with the spread of government interference with wages and with government support of unionism, conditions have changed. Institutional unemployment has become a chronic or permanent mass phenomenon.www.mises.org...
Originally posted by marko1970
This can be a touchy subject, BUT...
I think NOT passing the minimum wage increase was actually GOOD.
I don't feel it's up to the Gov't to decide what a company should pay an individual.
If you have some schmuck that barely does enough work to keep a job, why should you have to pay him a Gov't decided amount?
If the dude is worth 2.50 an hour, & he'll work for that much, no problem.
When you are "required" to pay someone a minimum, they may not be worth what they are paid.
This also makes it hard to negotiate wages at times.
If an employer has extra money tied up with a less productive person, it's harder for YOU (a HARD WORKER) to negotiate a higher salary, based on what YOU are worth.
Also, some employers will only start pay at the minimum wage, because there IS one. Rather than the employee, or potential employee bidding for what HE/SHE thinks is fair. (Thus, squelching the negotiations)
Originally posted by Escrotumus
I of course also wish there was a way for all people to be equal, but unfortunately that type of reality only exists in a communist's theory book.
Communism has been tried and has failed for many reasons too complicated to explain here.
The reality is that people can all pull themselves out of a poor lifestyle into a better one with a lot of hard work and dedication.
Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Its pathetic. The richest country on earth can't look out more for its struggling citizens. Hardworking people out there are drowning in the inability to keep up. And its not because they're not trying. The whole system is stacked against our lowest earners. And according to that AP quote, their dollar doesn't go nearly as far as it should. I'm not in poverty and I feel that myself.
As for the bloated paychecks of our congress critters go, they should all take a hefty paycut and divert that money to much greater needed programs.. to say feed our hungry, or job programs.
Greed and lack of humanity is out of control.
[edit on 8/6/06 by EastCoastKid]