How can minimum wage be eliminated?

[muh_roads]

It seems to me we first need to abolish the fed and reinstitute a gold standard before we can eliminate the minimum wage. Why is this wrong?

People need enough money to eat. If wages can't keep up with inflation then that is rude to people at the bottom. Minimum wage is not the prime cause of inflation. I'm sure it is people at the top printing more money for themselves.

[Brassmouth]

The minimum wage causes unemployment, particularly among the poor and youth populations. Eliminating it ASAP is ideal.

Of course, that will be impossible as long as the State exists.

[pahs1994]

That seems like a fair progression of events. Fed>Gold> min wage.
Who says that it is wrong?

off topic but an easier way for alot of this to happen is to get in state legislatures and then have a con-con. But people on this board seem terrifyed by that idea and think that anyone who suggests it wants to destroy the movement. Why?

[Brian4Liberty]

Replace it with a maximum wage... ;)

Then they might give the lowly workers the excess money they can't pay themselves.

[revolutionisnow]

Who is buying all the gold to put us on the gold standard? We are a bankrupt country. As far as minimum wage, minimum wage is not a livable wage and never will be. In the same way that you can create a widget with your hands and set the price as you see fit, you should be able to do this with your labor also. Supply and demand will set a fair price for services. The problem of illegal immigration directly relates to this though, as with a large pool of unskilled labor it decreases wages. Legal work visas also contribute to this problem.

[muh_roads]

Replace it with a maximum wage... ;)

Then they might give the lowly workers the excess money they can't pay themselves.

lol sounds socialist. like a union only much more extreme.

[Epic]

Who is buying all the gold to put us on the gold standard? We are a bankrupt country. As far as minimum wage, minimum wage is not a livable wage and never will be. In the same way that you can create a widget with your hands and set the price as you see fit, you should be able to do this with your labor also. Supply and demand will set a fair price for services. The problem of illegal immigration directly relates to this though, as with a large pool of unskilled labor it decreases wages. Legal work visas also contribute to this problem.

Uhh whoever wants to buy gold can buy gold. You don't need some government program to give people gold.

[Brassmouth]

The problem of illegal immigration directly relates to this though, as with a large pool of unskilled labor it decreases wages. Legal work visas also contribute to this problem.

http://anarchyinyourhead.com/comics/2009-07-03-top_ten_num5.png

[erowe1]

We do have to eliminate the Fed. But that's not a pre-requisite for abolishing the minimum wage. The minimum wage is always wrong and needs to be abolished no matter what, with or without the Fed.

Not everybody needs to make enough to eat, and even if everybody did need to in some imaginary world where nobody takes care of anybody else including their own children, it would still be wrong for the government to intervene in the economic agreements made freely between two parties. If somebody wants to have the right to offer their labor for $1/hour, nobody else has the right to stop them.

[Brian4Liberty]

lol sounds socialist. like a union only much more extreme.

Isn't this a socialist country? :rolleyes: Is there any difference in the government meddling in minimum wages vs. maximum wages?

Our current system (and more so in the past) attempts to create a "maximum" wage/income by having a progressive tax system. The government takes the excess money. I would prefer a maximum wage, where the business can decide where to spend that excess money (increase wages for other employees, invest in the business, etc.) instead of handing it over to our "wise" politicians and government to spend.

[revolutionisnow]

http://anarchyinyourhead.com/comics/2009-07-03-top_ten_num5.pn

Its not just "brown people". In resort areas all across America right now they acquire Russians/East Bloc students/young adults who are willing to come here and work for the summer for next to nothing. Why is this needed when unemployment is near 10%? And if we are going to allow unchecked immigration, or easily acquirable work visas, how about in every field? I bet if we try hard enough we can make it so even once high paying jobs such as dentist or doctor will only pay 35k a year through the miracle of a global labor pool. Instead of masseuses making $100 an hour, just acquire some people from 3rd worlds willing to do the same job for $100 a month.

[erowe1]

I bet if we try hard enough we can make it so even once high paying jobs such as dentist or doctor will only pay 35k a year through the miracle of a global labor pool.

That sounds like a great way to reduce health care costs.

[Zippyjuan]

General question for everybody- if they got rid of the minimum wage- what is the lowest wage you personally would be willing to accept to do a job? $5 an hour? $5 a day? How low are you willing to go? If there was only one employer in town and you had to bid on your wage to get a job- how low would you go? If you do not go low enough, you do not get the job because somebody else is willing to do it for less. Lowest wage bid gets the job. Without it- you starve.

"Well, I would find a better paying job somewhere else" is not acceptable here. If somebody else has to accept $1 an hour, then so do you in this case.

Maybe a secondary but possibly related question- of those who would like to get rid of the minimum wage- how many of you currently are paid the minimum wage? It is easy to tell somebody they should be paid less- are you willing to be paid less too?

[ItsTime]

There is no min wage now. Too many illegals.


And they are not just taking min wage jobs, I know they are taking jobs that use to pay $35+ an hour.

[Brian4Liberty]

That sounds like a great way to reduce health care costs.

Nice in theory. The reality is that most of the doctors at many HMOs have been replaced by imported, cheaper doctors, and the costs are still skyrocketing. Labor is not the big factor in our health-care crisis. Blame lawyers, insurance, big pharma and government/corporate monopolized medicine before you blame doctors.

[Brian4Liberty]

General question for everybody- if they got rid of the minimum wage- what is the lowest wage you personally would be willing to accept to do a job? $5 an hour? $5 a day? How low are you willing to go? If there was only one employer in town and you had to bid on your wage to get a job- how low would you go? If you do not go low enough, you do not get the job because somebody else is willing to do it for less. Lowest wage bid gets the job. Without it- you starve.


That would result in - god forbid - Anarchy!

[Brassmouth]

Its not just "brown people". In resort areas all across America right now they acquire Russians/East Bloc students/young adults who are willing to come here and work for the summer for next to nothing. Why is this needed when unemployment is near 10%? And if we are going to allow unchecked immigration, or easily acquirable work visas, how about in every field? I bet if we try hard enough we can make it so even once high paying jobs such as dentist or doctor will only pay 35k a year through the miracle of a global labor pool. Instead of masseuses making $100 an hour, just acquire some people from 3rd worlds willing to do the same job for $100 a month.

You are assuming that the imaginary line between United States and the rest of the world is legitimate.

This is a global market. If Russians want to come here and work for next to nothing, they should be free to do so. So what if the spoiled American wants a cozy, high-paying job? He has to earn it! He's not entitled.

The logical conclusion of your labor protectionism is self-sufficiency. That, needless to say, would mean mass starvation and death.

[revolutionisnow]

General question for everybody- if they got rid of the minimum wage- what is the lowest wage you personally would be willing to accept to do a job? $5 an hour? $5 a day? How low are you willing to go? If there was only one employer in town and you had to bid on your wage to get a job- how low would you go? If you do not go low enough, you do not get the job because somebody else is willing to do it for less. Lowest wage bid gets the job. Without it- you starve.

"Well, I would find a better paying job somewhere else" is not acceptable here. If somebody else has to accept $1 an hour, then so do you in this case.

Maybe a secondary but possibly related question- of those who would like to get rid of the minimum wage- how many of you currently are paid the minimum wage? It is easy to tell somebody they should be paid less- are you willing to be paid less too?

Minimum wage sets the bar lower than it would normally be. It is a low reference point. Without this point it would fluctuate. In some prosperous cities you would need to pay people x to find good help, in others where there is a large labor pool you would be able to pay them lower. The market would determine the wage, and it would be much higher than 6 an hour. I can sell my widgets for any price I like since there is no minimum widget price, but that does not mean I am willing to sell them for $1 each.

[gls]

off topic but an easier way for alot of this to happen is to get in state legislatures and then have a con-con. But people on this board seem terrifyed by that idea and think that anyone who suggests it wants to destroy the movement. Why?

Look at where democracy has gotten us. The majority of people are delusional. Everyone thinks they can live off everyone else. Hardly anyone even considers the idea of limiting government. A con-con would probably end up guaranteeing the "right" to free health care, the "right" to a free college education, etc.

As far as the minimum wage, it should be repealed immediately. The fact is that it costs jobs and is a drag on the entire economy. The Limousine Liberals who craft this type of legislation must hate poor people because they sure aren't doing them any favors.

[Bman]

An easy fix would be refusing to work for minimum wage.

[Zippyjuan]

Would getting rid of the minimum wage change much? FIgures for 2007.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2007.htm

About 3 percent of women paid hourly rates reported wages at or below the prevailing Federal minimum, compared with about 1 percent of men. (See table 1.)



The percent of workers earning the minimum wage did not vary much across the major race and ethnic groups. About 2 percent of white, black, Asian and Hispanic hourly-paid workers earned the Federal minimum wage or less.

[revolutionisnow]

It affects the rest of the pay scale also.

[slothman]

Our current system (and more so in the past) attempts to create a "maximum" wage/income by having a progressive tax system.
The government takes the excess money.
I would prefer a maximum wage, where the business can decide where to spend that excess money (increase wages for other employees, invest in the business, etc.) instead of handing it over to our "wise" politicians and government to spend.

I agree.
If they, the rich, give money to charities then it shouldn't count to the maximum wage.



An easy fix would be refusing to work for minimum wage.

What if the only job you are qualified for is minimum wage?

[Brian4Liberty]

I agree.
If they, the rich, give money to charities then it shouldn't count to the maximum wage.

A loophole? Those always creep in...

[Bman]

What if the only job you are qualified for is minimum wage?

Why would anyone qualify themselves to be worth minimum wage?

[ClayTrainor]

Why would anyone qualify themselves to be worth minimum wage?

I know several people who are working for minimum wage that have university degrees, lol.

[Anti Federalist]

You are assuming that the imaginary line between United States and the rest of the world is legitimate.

This is a global market. If Russians want to come here and work for next to nothing, they should be free to do so. So what if the spoiled American wants a cozy, high-paying job? He has to earn it! He's not entitled.

The logical conclusion of your labor protectionism is self-sufficiency. That, needless to say, would mean mass starvation and death.

Wut?

I'm about sick and tired of the "spoiled American" line here.

Tell you what, let's see some success at reducing the insane taxation rate of over 50% on the average family of four and then we'll talk.

And where do you get the idea that self sufficiency will lead to starvation and death? That's nothing but globalist fear mongering.

Food is one of the last things we still do produce.

If you're saying that the only way to survive is to throw ourselves over the barrel and take the reaming, then we might as well hang it up now, because liberty, as we know it is dead, if we have no choice but to comply with the increasing reach of global government and it's taxes, regulations and edicts that are unrepublican and unrepresentative.

[Anti Federalist]

off topic but an easier way for alot of this to happen is to get in state legislatures and then have a con-con. But people on this board seem terrifyed by that idea and think that anyone who suggests it wants to destroy the movement. Why?

Because an open con-con is just that, open.

Unless you had a whole convention comprised of Ron Pauls, who in government right now would you like to see re-writing the constitution and bill of rights?

[Bman]

I know several people who are working for minimum wage that have university degrees, lol.

That's amazing. There are people living in this coutry worth billions and you are going to work for $6.55(? I know it goes up to $7.25 later this month.), especially with an education? How do you manage college loans, and bills at that rate?

[ClayTrainor]

That's amazing. There are people living in this coutry worth billions and you are going to work for $6.55(? I know it goes up to $7.25 later this month.), especially with an education? How do you manage college loans, and bills at that rate?

Minimum wage in Canada will be lifted to 9.60 next year, i think it's at 8.90 right now.

only about 5 years ago i was making $10 / hour, at a grocery store and was considered fairly high compared to the minimum wage which was only $6.90. Inflation is definitely messing with us, and i think it's destroying jobs.

A lot of college students studied trades, and in Canada there's virtually no chance at getting into one of the Big 3 car companies, or other unions in this economy. There are some rare opportunities, but nothing close to meet the supply of qualified individuals coming out of school.

My one friend has a degree in mechanical engineering, and delivered pizzas for the last 2 years. He finally got a good paying job as a computer technician, which is a skill he learned all on his own, haha.

[james1906]

Illegals mess the whole thing up. We can get rid of the minimum wage if there wasn't an artificial labor supply depressing wages.

[idiom]

Without a minimum wage you would work on illegal immigrant wages. But at least you would work.

The minimum wage creates the artifical supply of labour.

If you want to be paid a lot that doesn't give you the right to the job someone else will do for less.

[JeNNiF00F00]

That's amazing. There are people living in this coutry worth billions and you are going to work for $6.55(? I know it goes up to $7.25 later this month.), especially with an education? How do you manage college loans, and bills at that rate?

I am an example of this. Unemployed. Live with parents. Sadly it is something that is becoming more and more popular. A job is a job. I am almost to the point where Id take that.

[pahs1994]

Because an open con-con is just that, open.

Unless you had a whole convention comprised of Ron Pauls, who in government right now would you like to see re-writing the constitution and bill of rights?

Doesn't it have to be called for a specific reason? Such as repealing the 16th or 17th amendment? If it is wide open then this all make a whole lot more sence why people hate it.

Are only state legislatures allowed to be in the con-con or is the house and senate involved too? If so, Why can't we just work to stack the state legislatures in a few years (should be easier to win) and take back our country locally. The way it should be imo

[revolutionisnow]

Without a minimum wage you would work on illegal immigrant wages. But at least you would work.

The minimum wage creates the artifical supply of labour.

If you want to be paid a lot that doesn't give you the right to the job someone else will do for less.

And all these years people thought Hong Kong was one of the most prosperous and economically free country, but really they were living on slave wages the entire time;)

Proposed Minimum Wage Law in Hong Kong Sparks Debate
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-02/2007-02-16-voa14.cfm

Minimum Wage Bill to be gazetted June 26
http://law.lexisnexis.com/webcenters/hk/News/Main-Topic-1/Minimum-Wage-Bill-to-be-gazetted-June-26

[Anti Federalist]

Doesn't it have to be called for a specific reason? Such as repealing the 16th or 17th amendment? If it is wide open then this all make a whole lot more sence why people hate it.

Are only state legislatures allowed to be in the con-con or is the house and senate involved too? If so, Why can't we just work to stack the state legislatures in a few years (should be easier to win) and take back our country locally. The way it should be imo

It can be, but once called, it can take whatever form the delegates want.

Congress calls the convention for amendments, but the state's legislatures or conventions are what ratifies it.

Article 5

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

[Zippyjuan]

And three fourths of the states have to aprove any amendment proposals the ConCon comes up with before they can go into effect.

[erowe1]

Illegals mess the whole thing up. We can get rid of the minimum wage if there wasn't an artificial labor supply depressing wages.

What's artificial about that labor supply? Those are real people offering real labor for real money. I'm against illegal immigration and amnesty. But it ought to be so easy for people to come here and work legally that nobody would ever have an incentive to do so illegally. There should be no limits in the numbers who can come here. If an employer wants to offer someone work for $1/hr. and he finds people willing to make that arrangement with him, then that is between those 2 parties only, and nobody else has any right to interfere. That employer's money is his to give out on the conditions of his choice to the people of his choice, and those foreign workers' labor is theirs to give out to the people of their choice on the conditions of their choice. The property the employer has them working on is presumably his own property, and no one else has a right to tell him who can and can't be there.

There should be no minimum wage, no safety regulations, no child labor laws, and no barriers put up against employers who want to hire foreigners, no matter how many they want to hire and how little they pay them.

In doing all that, of course, we have to eliminate the welfare state. We can't put up a sign facing out to the rest of the 6 billion people in the world and say, "Come here and the American taxpayer will give you whatever you need." And we'd also have to reform the prison system so that the cost of punishing crime is born by the criminals themselves and not taxpayers.

[ItsTime]

I know several people who are working for minimum wage that have university degrees, lol.

Half my friends that are not self employed that have college degrees are not working at all :eek:

They think they are above working for anything less than they think their piece of paper says they are worth.

[erowe1]

General question for everybody- if they got rid of the minimum wage- what is the lowest wage you personally would be willing to accept to do a job? $5 an hour? $5 a day? How low are you willing to go? If there was only one employer in town and you had to bid on your wage to get a job- how low would you go? If you do not go low enough, you do not get the job because somebody else is willing to do it for less. Lowest wage bid gets the job. Without it- you starve.

"Well, I would find a better paying job somewhere else" is not acceptable here. If somebody else has to accept $1 an hour, then so do you in this case.

Maybe a secondary but possibly related question- of those who would like to get rid of the minimum wage- how many of you currently are paid the minimum wage? It is easy to tell somebody they should be paid less- are you willing to be paid less too?

I'm a little confused by your question. You are making good hypothetical points to show why a minimum wage is a bad thing, but you seem to be concluding from these very points that it's actually good.

First of all, it is important to acknowledge that the scenario you described is completely imaginary and impossible in the real world. If there was one job available then all the population of the town outside of the one person who gets that job would then have to labor in various ways (albeit not "jobs") to survive. They would find that some of them are better at some things (such as gardening) and some at others (such as sewing). These relative differences in productivity are called "comparative advantage." They would inevitably arrange systems of commerce with one another where people focus on the things they do best to trade for the other things they need, which would be produced by the people that do those things best. They would use money as a medium of exchange. And, thus they would be employed doing work for money after all. The way to maximize the benefits of this is to keep the government out completely, having no regulations of any kind, allowing people to exchange freely among one another. If the government says, "No you can't work your garden and sell the produce unless you can do so at a rate that will pay you back at more than $7 per hour of your labor." then it would only make it harder on everyone, not easier.

But, for the sake of argument, let's pretend the scenario you described is not impossible. Suppose such a town actually existed. In that case, a minimum wage law would be very harmful. With a minimum wage law, that one employer would have to pay some worker minimum wage (he'd make sure it's the most productive worker he could find willing to work for that). But there would be other workers without jobs, some of whom would be willing to offer their labor for less. And even if they are less productive than that worker currently employed for minimum wage, they might offer their labor for a low enough price that they would actually produce more per dollar paid them for that employer than the minimum wage worker does. Also, since they're willing to work for less, that means they are more desperate for the job. So by lifting the minimum wage, the town would then increase it's total productivity and shift its employment more toward the person most desperate for employment. Since the one productive person in town is working for less, that means the thing he produces will now be available to the rest of the town (hopefully it's food) more cheaply, and they will be able to buy more of it.

You're probably right that most people here don't work for minimum wage. Therefore, we aren't affected by it in as direct a way as the people that do, or as the people who are unemployed now and would like to offer their labor for less than minimum wage if they were allowed to, or the people who own businesses that pay people minimum wage or would like to offer jobs at less than minimum wage if they were allowed to. Those people who are affected directly by minimum wage laws are the people who suffer the most harm from them. I am not personally harmed by them. But I'm close to someone who is, my developmentally disabled sister. She now works for a restaurant for minimum wage rolling silverware. Her hours are limited, her job security is low, and she gets no benefits. If profits of the restaurant go down too much, we know she'll be the first to go. She would love to work more hours and have more say over the hours she works, but she can't. If only she could offer her labor at a lower rate, then she could negotiate on other aspects of her job and ensure her security there. But she can't do that because self-righteous politicians have decided they know what's best for her better than she does (the dirty secret is that they don't really care about her, it's all about their union support). Several years ago she lost a job she loved at a supermarket because she just wasn't a fast enough worker to justify their paying her minimum wage. She ought to have had the option of offering to work for less, and nobody has the right to tell her she can't.

[Brian4Liberty]

But there would be other workers without jobs, some of whom would be willing to offer their labor for less. And even if they are less productive than that worker currently employed for minimum wage, they might offer their labor for a low enough price that they would actually produce more per dollar paid them for that employer than the minimum wage worker does. Also, since they're willing to work for less, that means they are more desperate for the job.

How low can you go in paying a worker? Are you advocating taking advantage of desperate people? Some people use an-cap or libertarian philosophy simply as justification for taking advantage of people.

[erowe1]

How low can you go in paying a worker?

There should be no limit to how low. In fact, in the law as it now exists, many workers work for $0/hour. They are called volunteers. What they do is perfectly legal, but if they were to get a raise to be paid $1/hour to pay for their gas, suddenly they would be law breakers. In fact, if I want to work for you, and I want to pay you money for the privilege of doing it, effectively working for a wage below zero, nobody has the right to tell me I can't.


Are you advocating taking advantage of desperate people?

Of course I advocate that! The only way I could not advocate it would be if I hated desperate people and wanted them to be remain in their desperate situations. Any time two people make an economic arrangement where they each give the other something in exchange for something else, whether that be in the form of a job or the purchase of something at the grocery, both parties are taking advantage of one another. For many desperate people, the best way out of their desperate situation is to offer their labor for what you might consider a very low wage, hoping that some employer will take advantage of their desperation by hiring them. This is always a good thing for both parties involved.

Here are some other examples of where self-righteous politicians have prevented desperate people from improving their lots by enacting laws that prevent those desperate people from doing the very things they need to do:
banning the sale of organs, banning price gouging during natural disasters, and banning child labor. I'm sure I could go on.

Incidentally, I'm not an an-cap. I'm just a lover of freedom and hater of tyranny, who thinks we'd be a lot better off if the people who took oaths to uphold the Constitution would do so. And I'm pretty sure the views I've expressed are the standard Austrian economic views, and the views that Ron Paul also holds.

[Bman]

I am an example of this. Unemployed. Live with parents. Sadly it is something that is becoming more and more popular. A job is a job. I am almost to the point where Id take that.

Two words. Self Employment. There has to be something you can do that is worth more than minimum wage.

[Brian4Liberty]

Of course I advocate that! The only way I could not advocate it would be if I hated desperate people and wanted them to be remain in their desperate situations. Any time two people make an economic arrangement where they each give the other something in exchange for something else, whether that be in the form of a job or the purchase of something at the grocery, both parties are taking advantage of one another. For many desperate people, the best way out of their desperate situation is to offer their labor for what you might consider a very low wage, hoping that some employer will take advantage of their desperation by hiring them. This is always a good thing for both parties involved.

So you would not pay someone a "reasonable" rate if you could get away with it? Certainly giving a job to someone is a good thing. Taking advantage is not. Maybe "taking advantage" is too vague. Do you advocate screwing people over?

Both parties do not always automatically benefit from any and all arrangements. You could consent to be a slave (and many people have in the past). In return, you (and your progeny) will be housed and fed. If you are desperate, you should be grateful for that "generosity".


And I'm pretty sure the views I've expressed are the standard Austrian economic views, and the views that Ron Paul also holds.

I bet Ron Paul would not advocate taking advantage of people.

[erowe1]

So you would not pay someone a "reasonable" rate if you could get away with it? Certainly giving a job to someone is a good thing. Taking advantage is not. Maybe "taking advantage" is too vague. Do you advocate screwing people over?

Both parties do not always automatically benefit from any and all arrangements. You could consent to be a slave (and many people have in the past). In return, you (and your progeny) will be housed and fed. If you are desperate, you should be grateful for that "generosity".



I bet Ron Paul would not advocate taking advantage of people.

As far as the law is concerned the relevant question to this discussion is not what people should do in their free exchanges with one another, but what government should or shouldn't do to interfere in those free exchanges. Minimum wage laws and other regulations are ways of the government interfering, as are all forms of corporate welfare. All of those are wrong. I'm reasonably sure that I'm on safe ground in saying that RP is with me on all this.

I don't advocate screwing people over. I do advocate paying them a reasonable wage. I also advocate--and this is the kicker--that nobody has any right to decide what a reasonable wage is for someone and whether they are being screwed over, except that person. When that person agrees to offer their labor for a given price, they have determined for themselves that they are better off by getting that wage than by not getting it. And their opinion is better than anyone else's in the world on that particular question. Who are you or anyone else to tell them they're wrong about that and that they, therefore, shouldn't have the right to offer their labor at a rate below the one you set for them?

If I am willing to hire someone to work for me, so long as I can pay them only $1/hour, and someone else out there is in desperate need of money and willing to offer their labor to me at that rate, so that we both then freely agree to that arrangement, then we will have both made one another better off according to the only definitions of "better off" that count, our very own. We have done no wrong. You, on the other hand, if you, along with others like you, using your vote and any other means you have of influencing the government, impel that government to prevent me and that desperate person from making that arrangement, are doing something purely evil and unjustifiable.

[teacherone]

So you would not pay someone a "reasonable" rate if you could get away with it? Certainly giving a job to someone is a good thing. Taking advantage is not. Maybe "taking advantage" is too vague. Do you advocate screwing people over?

Both parties do not always automatically benefit from any and all arrangements. You could consent to be a slave (and many people have in the past). In return, you (and your progeny) will be housed and fed. If you are desperate, you should be grateful for that "generosity".



I bet Ron Paul would not advocate taking advantage of people.

Ummm...unless someone is a slave, ie forced and coerced into a labor agreement, then that agreement is equitable between both parties. No one would voluntarily take a job that was screwing them over. He only goes to work if he benefits from his labor.

[Brian4Liberty]

Ummm...unless someone is a slave, ie forced and coerced into a labor agreement, then that agreement is equitable between both parties. No one would voluntarily take a job that was screwing them over. He only goes to work if he benefits from his labor.

I know plenty of people who are getting screwed over by their employers. When they have leverage, they use it!

We're going off track here, but in the real world, we are watching a real estate (and associated mortgage derivatives) collapse where everyone up and down the chain is saying "gee, these contracts weren't fair" or "I didn't understand" or "it's not my fault, they signed the contract". My point being that just because a contract exists does not mean that it is equitable. I don't have a solution, and I know government will make it worse.

[Brian4Liberty]

I don't advocate screwing people over.

That's good. Some libertarians don't have such good intentions. Too often, those who profess libertarian ideals have other agendas. For example, here's a short lecture on markets and regulations:

YouTube - Roundtable Discussion With Bernard Madoff (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab1NTIlO-FM)



You, on the other hand, if you, along with others like you, using your vote and any other means you have of influencing the government, impel that government to prevent me and that desperate person from making that arrangement, are doing something purely evil and unjustifiable.

The less government the better. My personal preference is for government to define crimes like fraud and theft, and enforce them. Nothing more.

[Objectivist]

YouTube - Milton Friedman on Minimum Wage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca8Z__o52sk)
YouTube - Power of the Market - Minimum Wage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6e8Pa6-IZU)

[Brian4Liberty]

YouTube - Milton Friedman on Minimum Wage

Good one. And as Uncle Milty says right at the beginning, there are two groups: "well-meaning sponsors" and "the special interests that use the well-meaning sponsors as front men". That applies to just about everything political...

[Objectivist]

Good one. And as Uncle Milty says right at the beginning, there are two groups: "well-meaning sponsors" and "the special interests that use the well-meaning sponsors as front men". That applies to just about everything political...

He speaks to the common man so the common man understands.