Thomas Sowell once again exposes the fallacy that minimum-wage laws are a good thing. And folks in and around Chicago seem to agree.
"What was uncommon was the reaction. Chicago's Mayor Richard M. Daley denounced the bill as "redlining," since it would have the net effect of keeping much-needed stores and jobs out of black neighborhoods. Both Chicago newspapers also denounced the bill.
The crowning touch came when Andrew Young, former civil rights leader and former mayor of Atlanta, went to Chicago to criticize local black leaders who supported this bill."
"A survey has shown that 85 percent of the economists in Canada and 90 percent of the economists in the United States say that minimum wage laws reduce employment. But you don't need a Ph.D. in economics to know that jacking up prices leads fewer people to buy. Those people include employers, who hire less labor when labor is made artificially more expensive."
"In the United States, the group hardest hit by minimum wage laws are black male teenagers. Those who refuse to admit that the minimum wage is the reason for high unemployment rates among young blacks blame racism, lack of education and whatever else occurs to them.
The hard facts say otherwise. Back in the 1940s, there was no less racism than today and black teenagers had no more education than today, but their unemployment rate was a fraction of what it is now -- and was no different from that of white teenagers. "
All seems like common sense to me.
5 comments:
Socialists like Nadir reside in a fantasy world where prices, costs, and supplies result from dial settings that master controllers can set. "Free medical care for everybody!" means that those master controllers are nice enough to turn the "medical coverage" dial to 100%. "Living minimum wage" means that the hearts of these people soften enough to turn up the wage dial.
These socialists remind me of my child, who walks through a store with me pointing at everything that she wants, and not understanding why I can't buy it all. "Just use your (magic) credit card. Or go to the (magic) bank and get some more money. Or tell your (magic) boss to pay you some more money."
When these socialists see young males roaming around aimlessly in a neighborhood, the Nadirs assume that this results from a combination of "the government is not doing enough" and "the government and corporations make it this way." Meanwhile we reformed leftists see a dysfunctional social order in which these aimless males every day make a poor decision to ignore oportunities to improve their lives and their enviornment, and even to harm people and property around them. When Nadir sees somebody working at Walmart, he believes that that Walmart should pay that person enough money to raise a family in a comfortable house. Meanwhile we reformed leftists believe that the Walmart employee has freely negotiated a price for his efforts, and that he or she and and should make other efforts to qualify for greater income either as a Walmart employee or in other ventures.
The Nadirs complain when Walmart sells merchandise at low prices (they don't pay employees enough!) or at high prices (exploiting consumers!). Remember how many leftists complained in the '90s about the low prices of petro in the US: this is encouraging Americans to drive those evil SUVs! Then they had a fresh set of complaints when those prices tripled to their current level: exploiting consumers and fattening corporate greadheads!
Very childish.
"Socialists like Nadir..."
Paul is calling me names again... Tell the Reformed Leftist PC police.
Bad form. Two points deduction.
Paul's rant is stupid and childish in and of itself.
I certainly understand economics, and like any good SOCIAL DEMOCRAT, I know the implications of regulated and unregulated wages.
"Back in the 1940s, there was no less racism than today and black teenagers had no more education than today, but their unemployment rate was a fraction of what it is now -- and was no different from that of white teenagers. "
However, wages for those black teenagers were very low and UNFAIR as they were for many poor whites and women of all stripes. Minimum wage laws were enacted to prevent ABUSE by capitalist pigs who would not provide an honest wage for an honest day's work. This is why a 40 hour work week was instituted, though companies got around that by inventing "salaried non-exempt" status. Workers make a higher wage, but are forced to work an unlimited number of hours with no overtime thus lowering their true hourly wage. More abuse of the system.
"Meanwhile we reformed leftists believe that the Walmart employee has freely negotiated a price for his efforts, and that he or she and and should make other efforts to qualify for greater income either as a Walmart employee or in other ventures."
I agree that any employee has the right to work at a given wage and can refuse to work for any wage they see as unfair. However, the level of profit gained by companies like Wal-Mart or Ford would allow them to pay workers a more equal wage.
It doesn't piss you auto workers off to see a company like Visteon post a net loss in 2004, but pay executuves millions of dollars in bonuses? Meanwhile the workers who provide the labor and create those revenues are denied profit sharing because there is no profit.
I know you guys don't care about "fairness". That has been proven time and again.
But Paul is right. Workers agree to their wages when they sign on the dotted line.
The busting of unions in the US has left the American worker vulnerable to exploitation by capitalist moneygrabbers. The failure of salaried workers to unionize and the failure of unions to organize salaried workers also undermines the American labor forces ability to exact FAIR wages and create a more equal society.
I am an advocate of economic democracy in addition to social and political democracy.
WORKERS OF THE WORLD: UNITE AND REVOLT!
Every developed country in the Western world provides a social safety net, including universal health care, for its citizens except the United States.
In this regard, the United States is a underdeveloped and backward.
Other nations recognize that circumstances often arise which prevent an individual from being able to pay for healthcare or they may lose a job. In those instances, humans should be able to receive a minimum standard of care. Yes, they should be able to pay for better care if they can afford it.
As a bastion of capitalist exploitation, the US fails to protect its citizens and workers. Ultimately this one factor above all else will lead to the nation's downfall and destruction.
These other "devloped countries" have less robust economies than the US, and I believe that their "universal healthcare" is one reason for this. The only reason those other countries can even attempt such a preposterous concept is that Americans pay for the healthcare technology that these governments dole out "universally." If the US goes to their system, where will the funds come from to pay for these resources?
Why do so many "workers" flock to live in this "bastion of worker exploitation"? Why do none never leave?
Post a Comment