Uncivil Rights
A BLOG rife with wit, sarcasm, and the endless joy which comes from taunting the socialistic and unpatriotic liberal left. Logical thoughts and musings ONLY need reply...unless you're really, really funny. You have the Uncivil Right to be an IDIOT.
"Give me LIBERTY, or give me DEATH!"
Friday, December 31, 2004
The Living Wage Fallacy
Democrats and Liberals like to think they're overturning a great humanitarian injustice by artificially increasing labor rates through government intervention called the minimum wage.
Now, even that idea has come under scrutiny and fire from all camps. Studies have shown articially raising wages increases unemployment. Yet politicians refuse to acknowledge facts. They play the political game that will garner more votes, that is to pay for votes. Tell the voter they can expect personal gain if certain politicians are elected. Fill pockets from the public treasury, income redistribution.
Basic economics tells us to artificially raise costs, will raise prices. It is a neverending cycle. The government must allow the free market to work. When a free market allows wages and prices to be set, needs will be met. But this philosophy will not garner votes.
Now politicians have created a new idea to sell to low wage earners. It is the "living wage." A wage theoretically set to allow the worker to buy the materials for and have a "normal" life. Who decides what is normal or how much is a living wage is not known. The fact is, the concept of a "living wage" is a fallacy.
First of all, every individual has different needs. Every situation is different, so an established minimum wage would not cover everyone equally. Well then, let's break it down into cities, since every city has its own socioeconomic demographics. However, what if there are two telephone operators, one from an upscale neighborhood and one from a slum. Should they make the same wage? What if they work at the same company doing the same job? Is there a average "living wage"? Can you begin to see the problems?
Unions will assess wages from similar jobs throughout an area to determine pay scales of union employees. Should a worker in New York City doing a particular job be paid the same as someone in rural Iowa performing the same job? Do we set the living wage by geographics, or job description? If it is set by geographics, what if the economy in that area changes? Should the living wage also change, up or down, as the area's economy?
It can be considered socially noble to argue for higher wages for those in need. However, everyone has a choice of where they live and what job they want to do. A "living wage" will articially increase prices even more than the minimum wage since the "living wage" would be higher than the minimum wage. This, in turn, will decrease the buying power the "living wage" was meant to increase. So where does it stop?
It stops when government intervention in business ceases. It stops when the free market is allowed to work and set wages and prices.
Now, even that idea has come under scrutiny and fire from all camps. Studies have shown articially raising wages increases unemployment. Yet politicians refuse to acknowledge facts. They play the political game that will garner more votes, that is to pay for votes. Tell the voter they can expect personal gain if certain politicians are elected. Fill pockets from the public treasury, income redistribution.
Basic economics tells us to artificially raise costs, will raise prices. It is a neverending cycle. The government must allow the free market to work. When a free market allows wages and prices to be set, needs will be met. But this philosophy will not garner votes.
Now politicians have created a new idea to sell to low wage earners. It is the "living wage." A wage theoretically set to allow the worker to buy the materials for and have a "normal" life. Who decides what is normal or how much is a living wage is not known. The fact is, the concept of a "living wage" is a fallacy.
First of all, every individual has different needs. Every situation is different, so an established minimum wage would not cover everyone equally. Well then, let's break it down into cities, since every city has its own socioeconomic demographics. However, what if there are two telephone operators, one from an upscale neighborhood and one from a slum. Should they make the same wage? What if they work at the same company doing the same job? Is there a average "living wage"? Can you begin to see the problems?
Unions will assess wages from similar jobs throughout an area to determine pay scales of union employees. Should a worker in New York City doing a particular job be paid the same as someone in rural Iowa performing the same job? Do we set the living wage by geographics, or job description? If it is set by geographics, what if the economy in that area changes? Should the living wage also change, up or down, as the area's economy?
It can be considered socially noble to argue for higher wages for those in need. However, everyone has a choice of where they live and what job they want to do. A "living wage" will articially increase prices even more than the minimum wage since the "living wage" would be higher than the minimum wage. This, in turn, will decrease the buying power the "living wage" was meant to increase. So where does it stop?
It stops when government intervention in business ceases. It stops when the free market is allowed to work and set wages and prices.
totalkaosdave, 9:04 AM
|
