What people choose to call the market wages is of little interest to me. The wages are what they are and there’s no policy instrument that can really make them higher without causing other ill effects. Minimum wages cause unemployment.

You can make the argument that the net effect of having them on society is still positive, though, and indeed that is the argument behind having minimum wages.

What is a ‘fair value wage’? The market wage is the meeting of buyers of labor (firms) and suppliers of labor (workers). If we assume the labor market is perfectly competitive both on the supply side and the demand side, it is, BY DEFINITION, the most fair wage possible for both sides of the equation.

You might argue that the labor market is actually not perfectly competitive, and you’d probably be right. The policy response would be to make the market more competitive, not whine about “slave wages” or any other Marx-inspired utopian fairy tales.

Unskilled labor simply is not very valuable in the market. In other words, if you want to make more money, do something other than unskilled labor.

You may call me cold and heartless for viewing the world as it is–objective, rather than touchy-feely. Fine, I can live with that. However, my world is the real world; I don’t live in a Marxist fantasy land. The world in which we live is unfortunately is rarely as glamorous or nice as we’d like it to be and while I’m not always happy to know that, I accept it.

Unemployment is caused by several things, but minimum wages are one of them. Labor is a market, not unlike the markets for socks, glasses or steaks. As such, if a price is imposed on the market by laws and that price is above the equilibrium price there will be greater supply than demand.

Now, it should not be said that minimum wages are the only thing that cause unemployment, because lack of perfect information, the fact that laborers are not 100% mobile from location to location, etc. also cause unemployment. But to claim that minimum wages do not increase unemployment demonstrates that you really know absolutely nothing about supply and demand and, ergo, economics in general.

I’ve never once said that we should get rid of minimum wages or child labor laws, mind you. (Of course, you’ll assume I support something so ridiculous because you have an axe to grind with anyone who happens to not be as touchy-feely carebear liberal as you.) Minimum wages have been shown to increase the GDP, which does benefit domestic prosperity.

I’m not ignoring large companies replacing small businesses. I’d like to note that in terms of labor they are monopsonies, not monopolies. A monopolist is a supply-side thing; to be a monopolist in the labor market would mean being a massive union of laborers. As of yet, the only true attempt at being a monopoly in the labor market was the IWW, which didn’t succeed in its goals due to government interference.

I typically oppose companies like Wal*Mart moving into communities and damaging the local economies and area businesses because competitive markets (i.e. markets where there are a lot of small businesses) are much better than markets dominated by monopolists. I would, for example, support the breaking up of Wal*Mart.

Finally, as you know nothing about economics theory, your last two paragraphs are essentially meaningless. Not all economics theories fall flat in real world application and if you knew anything about them you’d know that. Some of the theories are actually quite good and quite accurately reflect the real world.

And to clarify, capitalism is not an economic theory, it is a political view. There is no theoretical background for anything as all-encompassing as the ideology called ‘capitalism’. Economics is a study of trade-offs. We can raise or lower different variables in an economy based on actions that we take, consistent with economics theory.

Capitalism happens to be a particular set of ideas about which things we need to increase and which we need to decrease. It is a philosophical movement, not an economic theory.

If you can’t tell the difference between the two, we really can’t go anywhere interesting in this conversation as you really have not a whit of what you’re talking about.

Oh, and you didn’t specify what company you were talking about with that $60 billion number. Care to enlighten me?

As far as creating terms, I’m sure that most people with common sense can differentiate the difference between the necessities of food and housing and luxuries such as a BMW or a TV. Once again, the real world does not live in your economic textbooks. The fact that you view the world in such cold terms is a flaw within yourself, not the rest of the world. People don’t need me to tell them they need food, housing or health care to live. Such has been the case since man first began walking the earth.

Furthermore, unemployment isn’t the result of a minimum wage, but rather unemployment exists due to one simple fact: there are more laborers than jobs available. The minimum wage was a result of those pesky employers once again manipulation the labor force and paying them substandard wages. If you want to blame the minimum wage and labor laws, why not go back to the fact they were forbidden to abuse children as laborers?

You also seem to be missing the fact that more and more huge conglomerates are replacing small businesses and in many instances, they are a monopoly in all but name. Talk to the mom * pop grocers put out of business by Walmart, or the local hardware store forced out of business because it couldn’t compete with Home Depot or Lowes.

As for knowing more about how markets work, you might have a better understanding in theory, but all economic theories have fallen flat in real world application. Capitalism does not function as indicated by the massive bailouts to which the taxpayers are now chained. In a true capitalistic economy, these businesses would have been allowed to fail to make room for more efficient companies. You fail to take this into account, ignoring corporate welfare at the expense of the working class.

As far as Marxist class-struggle baggage, I retired at 42 and debt-free. I just happen to have enough humanity left in me to see the other side of the coin. I will take my Marxist baggage over your elitest “I have mine the rest can go screw yourselves”
baggage any day.

There is no economic difference between chemotherapy treatments and televisions. They are goods, which is to say that they provide people utility and depending on the consumer’s preferences and budget the consumer might be willing to pay for them. There are no such things as ‘luxuries’ or ‘necessities’ in terms of economics.

Rather, by creating these objectively useless terms, what you are trying to do is impose your preferences on other people by telling them what they should or should not spend their money on.

With your ‘more correct analogy’, I agree, at least in principle. If people do not have the money to buy food, or the means to grow or otherwise produce their own, they do not deserve to eat unless someoen is willing to feed them as an act of charity.

Now, realistically because we’ve imposed minimum wages on the labor market and created unemployment by doing so, I’m in favor of some degree of government action to feed people. But were that contraint not present, I would agree with the statement.

I don’t claim that employers would be forced, financially, to lay off employees. I claim that they would be forced economically to lay off employees. Economic profits, revenues and costs do not really correlate with how well the company is doing financially because they’re relative to how everyone else in the industry is doing.

If the market is competitive and it is normal for the industry to make around X, companies will lay off workers to compete. The only case where your reasoning might hold true is in areas where the market is dominated by a monopolist firm.

And… what company are you referring to that makes a profit of $60 billion per year? Even the much-loathed (and rightly so) ExxonMobil, Wal-Mart and Microsoft aren’t making that much.

As for my supposedly not being pro-labor, I am actually very pro-labor. But I’m an economist and my opinions are inevitably affected by the fact that I know more about how markets work than you do and the fact that I don’t have any Marxist class-struggle baggage.

Ever try to form a union in a right to work state? It is extremely difficult, especially when there are companies that routinely fire any employee suspected of being pro-union. I have worked for such companies and I know from personal experience it happens frequently.

You try to equate health care with luxurys such as owning a BMW or a new TV, but your analogy is faulty. Health care isn’t a luxury that people can do without, but rather a necessity. A more correct analogy would be to say “If people can’t afford food, they don’t deserve to eat.” Again, a totally heartless response.

You claim that employers would be forced to lay off employees if they had to pay for health care. This is not the only option, only the option of the greedy and opportunistic. Another option would be to lower their profit margin. I have worked for a company that makes a profit of approx 60 billion per year, yet paid their average employees a substandard wage so that even the paltry insurance they offered was not affordable to many who worked there. Why is it wrong for them to expect heath coverage, as opposed to the company making 50 billion year while providing heath care per rather than 60 billion. If you divide the revenues generated by the number of employees (not counting management), you will find that they are receiving vastly insufficient compensation in proportion to the revenues they generate. In short, without these employees, this would not be a 60 billion per year company. Why do these companies “magically” deserve these kinds of profits at the expense of their employees?

It is obvious you are not pro-labor, so I will leave you with this little history lesson. This “let them eat cake” attitude has a way of coming back and biting one in the arse.

What constitutes ‘adequate healthcare’? Moreover, why does one magically deserve it? One does not deserev something if he or she is unable to pay for it.

I, personally, do not deserve to be a homeowner at the moment because I lack the income to pay a mortgage. I would certainly *like* to be a homeowner, but it’s outside of my budget and I accept that. I’m not knocking down the government’s door saying that I deserve to own a house and thus they ought pay for it.

Likewise, health care is a privilege, not a right. You do not deserve health insurance if you cannot afford it for the same reason that I don’t deserve a BMW, a house or new TV. (Regardless, there are macroeconomic reasons why universal health care may be a good idea, so I’m still not opopsed to it.)

Regarding your argument that companies should provide it free of charge, to a company, the amount of money they have to spend to have an employee is totaled and then they subtract that from the books. Whether they give you health insurance or give you a higher salary isn’t really any different to a company. If, hypothetically, firms were required to maintain current wages and also pay for health insurance on top of that, they would be forced to lay off employees to do so.

As for your guess that my health insurance is good, your guess is incorrect. My health insurance is satisfactory, but ‘good’ is not a term I’d use to describe it. Better luck next time.

Rachel: There is a difference between being compassionate and believing the government should be a nanny. I don’t have a problem with people giving money so that others can have health insurance when they can’t afford it, and indeed I support that behavior.

But it’s not the government’s place to impose that cost on people, and since health care services are goods, one does not deserve it unless he or she is able and willing to pay for them.

And actually, your comment about the US being the only industrialized country that does not provide basic health care is false. Many (most?) countries require the user of the service to pay a portion of the bill rather than it being funded with taxes. Japan, for example, requires that the citizen pay a third of his or her health care costs out of pocket.

It’s an interesting scheme because it makes the cost of the procedure less expensive to the individual but still helps curb the overutilization of services that occurs in countries where all services are paid for by taxes.

Kari, have you heard of compassion? Since when is “life” a “lifestyle”? This is the only industrialized nation on earth that does not provide basic healthcare for all its citizens. I think it’s appalling.

I must say this is one of the most heartless, cool-blooded statements I have yet seen posted. Translated, it simply means “F*** the poor”. There are companies that make billions every year but pay their workers such substandard wages that these people cannot AFFORD health insurance for themselves, much less their families. Tell me why someone who is working full time to help make a company rich deserves less than adequate healthcare. This should be provided free of charge by major corporations with the understanding that it is an investment in the infrastructure of labor, as healthy workers are more productive. Also, in case you haven’t had to use the services of a hospital lately, those that can pay are charged 5 times the costs to make up for the other 4 that can’t pay. Seeing as how the taxpayers are having to fork over hundreds of billions to keep companies afloat, it is only fair they give something in return. Pay people a wage they can live on and maybe they can afford their own insurance. I would guess by your statement that you are one of the fortunate few who has good health coverage, so maybe you can see if they will replace the stone in your breast with an actual HUMAN heart. Truly disgusting.

“I’m not sure why left-wingers are surprised by any of this though.”

What on earth makes you presume Ms Ruby-Sachs is a “left-winger”? In her very short stin here, she has in no way proven that she is. Quite the opposite, imho.