Comments on: The Best Case for Limited Government Ever Made http://www.chrisbrunner.com/2006/07/07/the-best-case-for-limited-government-ever-made/ Random comments and thoughts of Chris Brunner Fri, 05 Dec 2008 10:50:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.11 by: Anonymous Coward http://www.chrisbrunner.com/2006/07/07/the-best-case-for-limited-government-ever-made/#comment-27129 Sun, 23 Sep 2007 05:59:03 +0000 http://www.chrisbrunner.com/2006/07/07/the-best-case-for-limited-government-ever-made/#comment-27129 If minimum wage supposed to be determined by supply-demand, i.e. skills offered/availability - price determined for skills by the market, it is fine as long as say certain skills are artificially inflated? (by the means of illegal/legal immigration - with unfortunately illegal immigrants clamoring for same lower wage jobs) Oh! And the person above also said, minimum wage job is supposed to be stepping stone. This is right as long as stepping stones are available (These have been moved to china). I am by no means any immigration - as I am very recent beneficiary of this system, but rather immorally now that I am through the door, I want to protect my own wage. IMHO, people are not as disposable as dozen a dollar tube socks made in china (I don't wash my socks any more) sold at Walmart. On the wrong side though, setting minimum wage also encourages illegal immigration as employers hire illegals (please do not read people from south of the boarder here). To give example, all the News stands at NJ malls are staffed by graduate students from certain Asian country (Student visa - Not eligible work). I think we should simply empower those people who would otherwise be competing same jobs as illegals to complain, protest this. Unfortunately, they are very very busy making enough to eat and if anybody else protesting this system are immediately construed as anti-immigrant at best, racist at worst. If minimum wage supposed to be determined by supply-demand, i.e. skills offered/availability - price determined for skills by the market, it is fine as long as say certain skills are artificially inflated? (by the means of illegal/legal immigration - with unfortunately illegal immigrants clamoring for same lower wage jobs) Oh! And the person above also said, minimum wage job is supposed to be stepping stone. This is right as long as stepping stones are available (These have been moved to china). I am by no means any immigration - as I am very recent beneficiary of this system, but rather immorally now that I am through the door, I want to protect my own wage. IMHO, people are not as disposable as dozen a dollar tube socks made in china (I don’t wash my socks any more) sold at Walmart. On the wrong side though, setting minimum wage also encourages illegal immigration as employers hire illegals (please do not read people from south of the boarder here). To give example, all the News stands at NJ malls are staffed by graduate students from certain Asian country (Student visa - Not eligible work). I think we should simply empower those people who would otherwise be competing same jobs as illegals to complain, protest this. Unfortunately, they are very very busy making enough to eat and if anybody else protesting this system are immediately construed as anti-immigrant at best, racist at worst.

]]> by: Todd Marshall http://www.chrisbrunner.com/2006/07/07/the-best-case-for-limited-government-ever-made/#comment-1574 Sat, 02 Sep 2006 22:51:02 +0000 http://www.chrisbrunner.com/2006/07/07/the-best-case-for-limited-government-ever-made/#comment-1574 I personally have an opinion on this subject … and it doesn’t support the first comment. But let’s presume the first commenter is correct … that a higher minimum wage is needed. How does he know? And how does he know how much higher it should be? And what limits the highest it should be? I think if the commenter answers these questions honestly, he will disprove his thesis himself. As regards the comment “but minimum wage jobs are not _meant_ to support someone forever.”, how much sillier can a comment be? Do you know of anyone who goes into business and hires a person with the intention of supporting them? They don’t. They look at the tasks they need performed to produce the service or product they wish to profit by. If the numbers work they put the business into effect. If the numbers don’t work they don’t start the business. And if the numbers change during the course of business they decide whether to continue or to close the business. But in none of this do they think … “hmmm, how many people can I support at what level with this business?” Therefore I submit that no jobs, minimum wage or otherwise, are intended to support someone … for the moment or forever. They are intended to support the creation of the product or service which the creator of the job expects to profit from … period! I personally have an opinion on this subject … and it doesn’t support the first comment. But let’s presume the first commenter is correct … that a higher minimum wage is needed. How does he know? And how does he know how much higher it should be? And what limits the highest it should be? I think if the commenter answers these questions honestly, he will disprove his thesis himself.

As regards the comment “but minimum wage jobs are not _meant_ to support someone forever.”, how much sillier can a comment be? Do you know of anyone who goes into business and hires a person with the intention of supporting them? They don’t. They look at the tasks they need performed to produce the service or product they wish to profit by. If the numbers work they put the business into effect. If the numbers don’t work they don’t start the business. And if the numbers change during the course of business they decide whether to continue or to close the business. But in none of this do they think … “hmmm, how many people can I support at what level with this business?”

Therefore I submit that no jobs, minimum wage or otherwise, are intended to support someone … for the moment or forever. They are intended to support the creation of the product or service which the creator of the job expects to profit from … period!

]]> by: Dave Smith http://www.chrisbrunner.com/2006/07/07/the-best-case-for-limited-government-ever-made/#comment-324 Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:33:14 +0000 http://www.chrisbrunner.com/2006/07/07/the-best-case-for-limited-government-ever-made/#comment-324 That's all fine and good, kalisphoenix, but minimum wage jobs are not _meant_ to support someone forever. They are a stepping stone. A starting point for teenagers and people just getting on their feet. That’s all fine and good, kalisphoenix, but minimum wage jobs are not _meant_ to support someone forever. They are a stepping stone. A starting point for teenagers and people just getting on their feet.

]]> by: kalisphoenix http://www.chrisbrunner.com/2006/07/07/the-best-case-for-limited-government-ever-made/#comment-225 Mon, 10 Jul 2006 22:45:52 +0000 http://www.chrisbrunner.com/2006/07/07/the-best-case-for-limited-government-ever-made/#comment-225 I disagree. These Objectivists and Chicago/Austrian-school economists always make the same idiotic comments and pass them off as thoughtful and logical. "The minimum wage law does not assure everyone a minimum wage -- rather, it makes everyone whose skills are not worth the minimum wage unemployable" (or words to that effect). Of course, no job paying minimum wage demands any skills whatsoever, and I defy you to name any productive industry where the worker generates less than $6 worth of product per hour. Remember the guy bagging your groceries? If he bags each load of groceries in five minutes, that's $.50 that he gets paid per load. Hardly a loss that Kroger cannot afford, and they make it up in the price of one item. He smiles smugly and suggests that corporations be allowed to hire people for, say, $4 an hour (in today's economy) -- that is, for someone working two full-time jobs. the breathtaking sum of about $1371 a month. Given that most hourly jobs do not compensate the worker for lunch and breaks, one must assume that sleep can occur only on the weekend :-) How would a single person live with this income? And are there really two jobs for each and every man worth $4 an hour? What minimum wage laws encourage is the efficiency of business (hey, if you can't afford to pay people $6 an hour, you're not running your company very well). They also manage to allow people to work 40 hours a week and make almost enough to pay for rent and groceries. A couple can, although unhappily, make it on two full-time minimum wage jobs, in the best of circumstances. Any less than that is completely unreasonable. As always, capitalists define poverty as "living in a cardboard box." In their minds, they view people as 1) being productive, well-paid, efficient, fat, and happy, or 2) starving to death in a blizzard while wishing they had been more productive, well-paid, efficient, fat, and happy. Unfortunately, the real world is not that simple. Psychology and sociology have demonstrated that lower-income families yield kids with (on the large) lower intelligence, lower self-efficacy, and lower ability that attend worse schools, lack opportunities ensured by the money of their upper-class peers (remember that Friedman holds the only just arbiter to be money), and in general lead shorter, unhappier lives. Does Friedman honestly think that lowering taxes and abolishing the minimum wage will somehow brighten the souls of the countless people out there living in poverty while working full-time and sometimes even multiple jobs? Don't be so naive. God. I disagree. These Objectivists and Chicago/Austrian-school economists always make the same idiotic comments and pass them off as thoughtful and logical. “The minimum wage law does not assure everyone a minimum wage — rather, it makes everyone whose skills are not worth the minimum wage unemployable” (or words to that effect). Of course, no job paying minimum wage demands any skills whatsoever, and I defy you to name any productive industry where the worker generates less than $6 worth of product per hour. Remember the guy bagging your groceries? If he bags each load of groceries in five minutes, that’s $.50 that he gets paid per load. Hardly a loss that Kroger cannot afford, and they make it up in the price of one item. He smiles smugly and suggests that corporations be allowed to hire people for, say, $4 an hour (in today’s economy) — that is, for someone working two full-time jobs. the breathtaking sum of about $1371 a month. Given that most hourly jobs do not compensate the worker for lunch and breaks, one must assume that sleep can occur only on the weekend :-) How would a single person live with this income? And are there really two jobs for each and every man worth $4 an hour?

What minimum wage laws encourage is the efficiency of business (hey, if you can’t afford to pay people $6 an hour, you’re not running your company very well). They also manage to allow people to work 40 hours a week and make almost enough to pay for rent and groceries. A couple can, although unhappily, make it on two full-time minimum wage jobs, in the best of circumstances. Any less than that is completely unreasonable.

As always, capitalists define poverty as “living in a cardboard box.” In their minds, they view people as 1) being productive, well-paid, efficient, fat, and happy, or 2) starving to death in a blizzard while wishing they had been more productive, well-paid, efficient, fat, and happy. Unfortunately, the real world is not that simple. Psychology and sociology have demonstrated that lower-income families yield kids with (on the large) lower intelligence, lower self-efficacy, and lower ability that attend worse schools, lack opportunities ensured by the money of their upper-class peers (remember that Friedman holds the only just arbiter to be money), and in general lead shorter, unhappier lives.

Does Friedman honestly think that lowering taxes and abolishing the minimum wage will somehow brighten the souls of the countless people out there living in poverty while working full-time and sometimes even multiple jobs?

Don’t be so naive. God.

]]>