Nerds For Words
Monday, October 30, 2006
  Raise the minimum wage?
Yes or no? The ballot initiative doesn't give us Ohioans much opportunity for nuance. So what I am struggling with is whether or not I should vote to increase the state minimum wage, with a further index to inflation.

Pros:
Poor people need to earn a living wage.
Minimum wages are positively correlated with unemployment, but we can afford a little more unemployment right now.
Votes are cheap, and I can always move if the economy tanks.
Its one way to stick it to Wal-Mart.

Cons:
Markets are better at deciding what a laborer is worth.
Some employees aren't worth $8/hour.
It will make Ohio a less employer friendly state. And it alreadys sucks.
Government interference is annoying.
Helping poor people may best be done with structural reforms that improve how much they are worth to an employer.

Can you guys help me out on this? My free-market side equates this to original sin, but my social liberal side considers this a dubious humanitarian gesture.
 
Comments:
I pretty much sit around and read ancient books like Plato's "Phaedrus" or John Milton's "Samson Agonistes." So when people ask me my opinion about current economic policies, I'm more than bewildered. I'm literally speechless - that is, without speech.

I would say, give the poor more money. Everyone probably deserves more than what he gets. Whether or not lousy workers deserve a less-than living wage (isn't minium wage only a living wage if you live in a flophouse with like 12 other people?) is complicated for various reasons - at least for me who thinks there is social/racial/economic disparity in our nation that's built into the system. The problem, to me, is that I view business owners as being greedy bastards who would try to get blood from the proverbial turnip, if they could. In other words, let's say there isn't a min. wage, and bosses paid their employers what they are "worth." But that 'worth" is a purely subjective value determined solely by the boss or owner, and so justice in this regards could be easily jeopardized, right? In other words, I could "say" I'm only paying my floor-sweeper $5.00 an hour because he's sometimes late to work, but how would anyone know that it's not because I'd like to pocket that extra $3.00 an hour if I could? Having a governmental agency that would monitor such corruption seems impossible - much easier to just implement a minimum wage. It's a shotgun approach to the problem - hurts some, helps some - but for the majority of non-salaried wage earners - it probably hits the mark.

You asked for my opinion, and so there it is. I'd be curious to know where my thinking is wrong, or how I've missed the point. It won't hurt my feelings, as I'm getting lots of practice eating humble pie here at grad school.

Okay, back to Aristotle. Whoopee.
 
I am tending to agree with you. I had to send in my ballot earlier today, so I didn't have the benefit of your thoughts, but I came to the $6.85/hour conclusion.

What I ultimately came to it is probably a small chunk of our population that is worth $5.15/hour but not worth $6.85/ hour. For them we really ought to invest a bit more in schooling, training, public transit and those other things that would increase their value. I was afraid that raising the minimum wage was "False charity" but in the end, I wasn't given the choice to affect the other issues.

And I get to stick it to Wal-Mart, Wendy's, McDonalds, and the other lousy employers.

I changed dentists today because my old one didn't provide any healthcare benefits to the hygienists (and was worth millions of $) so the least I can do is vote for a little bonus for the working poor.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

ARCHIVES
August 2006 / September 2006 / October 2006 / November 2006 / December 2006 / January 2007 / February 2007 / March 2007 / April 2007 / May 2007 / June 2007 / August 2007 / November 2007 / December 2007 / February 2008 / June 2008 / August 2008 / March 2009 / April 2009 /


Powered by Blogger