The Minimum Wage
The federally mandated minimum wage will be raised from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour over the next 26 months. The bill passed the house 315-116. That’s pretty damn bipartisan and doesn’t give the Republicans a lot of leeway to claim, as they have, that this is a job-killer.
Frankly, if the Republicans believe that benefits can trickle down to the poor if the taxes of the rich go down, then it follows that more money in the pockets of the poorest workers will enable them to buy more things, thus growing the economy. If it trickles down, it can trickle up. Who fancies a trickle?
The minimum wage has not been raised in nine years.
The bill now goes to the Senate where some Democratic leaders say they may add a tax break to it for small business to offset the cost and avert a possible Republican roadblock…
…At $5.15 per hour, a person working 40 hours per week makes $10,712 per year, about $5,000 below the poverty line for a family of three.
According to federal statistics, in 2005, the latest year figures are available, 479,000 people received the minimum wage. But millions of others were paid just a dollar or two more, with many of them also living in poverty.
Congratulations to the people struggling the most.
Christopher Says:January 12th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Yes, this is laudable and I certainly cheer it.
Too bad though Madam Pelosi caved to the Big Pharma lobby yesterday and didn’t demonstrate similar leadership.
Derek J. Punaro Says:January 12th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
I don’t think it was a bipartisan vote at all. The Republicans who voted for it did so for the political value of not having the stigma of “being mean to poor people” in the next election cycle. They knew they the vote would pass regardless, so they saved some political face in the process.
Regardless, it’s another example of government governing economics when government doesn’t understand economics. You can’t artificially inflate the value of a particular person’s work or a certain type of job. Your final quote shows this. Millions of people are paid above minimum wage already, only 479,000 are paid minimum wage. The value of those jobs is already more than the minimum wage, without requiring government intervention to get to that point. Raising the minimum wage will have an effect - either minimum wage jobs will be eliminated or the people making above minimum wage will not get raises because other, less qualified people are being forced to be paid more.
Furthermore, the fact that government is talking about creating more complexity in the tax code to give breaks to small business shows that there is a definite affect on small business by artificially inflating wages.
The free market does a far better job of determining the value of work than the government does. It should be allowed to continue to function that way.
Tatonka Says:January 12th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
It’s about time.
Buffalo Hodgepodge Says:January 12th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
I’m all in favor of increasing the minimum wage. However, we should recognize that it’s a very blunt instrument to reducing poverty. Most minimum wage workers are, in fact, teenagers and other part-time workers earning supplemental household income. A better way to reduce poverty is by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Mike In WNY Says:January 12th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Hurray for the “2007 Minority Youth Unemployment Act” of the “2007 Bonus for Middle-Class Suburban Teenagers Act” - some facts:
BuffaloBloviator.wnymedia.net Says:January 12th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
I worry that both political parties have left behind the $6.00 worker. If you are worth $6.00 per hour, it is now illegal for somebody to give you a job.
Some of these workers will have the ability to recognize that they must take it upon themselves to avail themselves of resources that can elevate their skills. The rest will be left behind.
What is being done for the worker with $6.00 skills that is being left behind?
James Says:January 12th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Some interesting stats Mike - thanks.
It could be argued that Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is an more effective way of benefiting the poor who work. A few of these stats back that.
ryan Says:January 12th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
If increasing the minimum wage doesn’t harm the economy why not just make it $1000 an hour? Everyone would become upper class with the stroke of a might politician’s pen.
RW Says:January 12th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Let’s just take it on faith that your right and increasing the minimum wage won’t be a job killer (a dubious assumption). It certainly won’t create jobs or make it easier to find one and this hurts young minorities. According to Dept. of Labor statistics over half of all minimum wage earners are under 25. Whites and blacks are equally as likely to earn minimum wage as a % of their populations, however blacks are twice as likely to be unemployed. So by raising the minimum wage you actually increase the likliehood that young black people will remain unemployed. Nice job Congress.
jen Says:January 12th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
So what that many min. wage workers are students and young? Is that a reason they should not make more? I worked all throughout college for gas, food and book money. I took out student loans to do it but never qualified for enough so I had to come up with the rest of the money on my own. I made more than mini. wage at various part time jobs, but not much more. I know it would have helped me to earn a few more bucks in my pocket and as pointed out, it has not been raised in NINE YEARS. The cost of everything has gone up, esp. for youn students (hello college education anyone? Insurance? Gas?) So good on them, I hope it helps them.
Fed-Up in Buffalo Says:January 12th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Not all min. wage workers are young or students. Props to Jen for saying everything else has gone up. It will keep going up. I’m making min. wage & with the increase I’m not going to be any more ahead than when I was making $5.25 an hour because costs of everything else keeps increasing. Has anyone been to Tops or Wegman’s lately? They jacked their prices up on everything. A nickel or dime here or there, 50¢ more on this or that. It all adds up. It doesn’t take long to realize that “raise” is eaten up by all the other cost of living increases.
Fed-Up in Buffalo Says:January 12th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Not all min. wage workers are young or students. Props to Jen for saying everything else has gone up. It will keep going up. I’m making min. wage & with the increase I’m not going to be any more ahead than when I was making $5.25 an hour because costs of everything else keeps increasing. Has anyone been to Tops or Wegman’s lately? They jacked their prices up on everything. A nickel or dime here or there, 50¢ more on this or that. The same price for ice cream but in a smaller container. It all adds up. It doesn’t take long to realize that “raise” is eaten up by all the other cost of living increases.
hank kaczmarek Says:January 12th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Tatonka feels it’s about time. and for a few, very few, it is.
Of course, if your company happens to be in Aunt Nancy’s district, you don’t have to pay it.
From the Washington Times.
House Republicans yesterday declared “something fishy” about the major tuna company in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district being exempted from the minimum-wage increase that Democrats approved this week.
“I am shocked,” said Rep. Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican and his party’s chief deputy whip, noting that Mrs. Pelosi campaigned heavily on promises of honest government. “Now we find out that she is exempting hometown companies from minimum wage. This is exactly the hypocrisy and double talk that we have come to expect from the Democrats.”
On Wednesday, the House voted to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour.
The bill also extends for the first time the federal minimum wage to the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands. However, it exempts American Samoa, another Pacific island territory that would become the only U.S. territory not subject to federal minimum-wage laws.
One of the biggest opponents of the federal minimum wage in Samoa is StarKist Tuna, which owns one of the two packing plants that together employ more than 5,000 Samoans, or nearly 75 percent of the island’s work force. StarKist’s parent company, Del Monte Corp., has headquarters in San Francisco, which is represented by Mrs. Pelosi. The other plant belongs to California-based Chicken of the Sea.
“There’s something fishy going on here,” said Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina Republican.
SO–ALL THE WORKING POOR REJOICE!!! UNLESS OF COURSE, YOU WORK FOR A COMPANY REPRESENTED BY NANCY PELOSI.
Damn smooth move, eh?
Patrck Mc Henry represents the 10th District of North Carolina, and he’s my House rep. The youngest member of the House in it’s last session (he was 28 when elected), he was re-elected with over 65% of the vote.
I send him e-mails on every bill I’m concerned about, and I always get an answer. I mention this only as you’ll be hearing more from him as a vocal member of the minority.
Mike, thanks for the stats. Anyone who think this is a wonderful thing, go ask anyone who operates a small business, then take out your earplugs, cause you’re gonna hear quite a bit about how much it hurts the small businessman.
RW Says:January 12th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Sorry jen how insensitive of me. It is far more important to make sure that the middle class white kids can make a few extra dollars waiting on tables at the Olive Garden to help pay for College then it is to increase the chance that a poor black kid gets a job and takes the first step out of the cycle of poverty.
Ted B. aka Crisco Kid Says:January 12th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
. . . once again I say, you thought things would be better under a Democratic majority. FOOLISH YOU!
Tatonka Says:January 12th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
RW, the logic of your argument - that an increase in the minimum wage causes poor black kids to lose their jobs, or makes it harder for them to find a job (?) - escapes me. Can you explain more clearly?
steve Says:January 12th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
I run a small business — maybe a restaurant, or a greenhouse, or a market — and have need for largely unskilled labor. My business needs 10 such employees who, if they all worked at once, would cost me $51.50 per hour.
Now that govt. has once again intervened in my business without improving my business, for the same $51.50 I must employ three FEWER workers.
Thank you very little.
Jay Says:January 12th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Simple. As the minimum wage increases, total costs for employers increase to the point where they lose less money by cutting hours, firing workers, etc. - especially if paying payroll taxes. As the minimum wage goes up jobs actually decrease, especially across companies that specialize in low-skill human capital (i.e. Burger King). I don’t think this will be too big of a deal, since in many areas where this would help those in need, the wage floor has been set above $7; if you’re in a metropolitan area and friends with Nancy Pelosi, then it doesn’t even matter.
Also, increasing the minimum wage doesn’t grow the economy because people making the minimum wage are likely already getting slammed with the idiot tax. Even in suburban teenagers, the incidence of the two are correlated. Even with the increased minimum wage, people will spend money on things like Doritos and movies and still eschew any rational plan to start saving money. It’s a socioeconomic issue, really.
Frankly, the fact that there’s a minimum wage period is insulting. the market should decide what a unit of work is worth, not some authortarian hand coming down and saying “one hour of making food = one hour of (insert menial task).” If we got rid of it, wage levels would stay much the same and it would allow consumers to be better served. This would also make companies more competitive and their shareholders happier.
eac Says:January 12th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Who’s fault is it that you can’t run a business well enough to cover your workers at a living wage? Who’s fault is it if the reason you’re unable to pay 72.50 an hour is because your personal salary is the equivalent of 725.00/hour? Whose fault is it if you can’t cover the living wage because you only buy supplies from this one guy in town, he’s not the cheapest, but he is your cousin/uncle/best friend, so you feel a certain obligation? &c.
You can’t put all of the blame on the gvt. Moreover, all of these free-market/libertarian positions are theoretical, in that there has never been (and likely will never be) a completely open and free market in the world. Ergo, the theory that the unencumbered market would pay out balanced and appropriate and livable wages if left unfettered has no more or less merit than my contention of the opposite.
RW Says:January 12th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Tatonka, The unemployment rate among blacks in more than twice that of whites so a decrease in jobs is going to effect them more.
Tatonka Says:January 12th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
You stated that your operative assumption was that a minimum wage increase wouldn’t decrease the number of jobs, so I thought you were arguing some other point.
Minimum wage opponents always argue that increasing it will increase unemployment, but I’ve never seen convincing evidence that this is true. If someone wants to point me to some, I’d be glad to consider it.
FearlessLeader Says:January 12th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
The minimum wage legislation is a joke. It’s propaganda for the Democrats who are as beholden to big business as Republicans. The Dems however need the middle class to believe they actually give a shit about working people.
What you free market pinheads don’t seem to get is that unions are a product of a free market but both Dems and Repubs have worked to gut labor’s free market right to organize. This deprives labor of the ability to negoatiate on a level playing field with business and keeps wages down.
jen Says:January 12th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
RW, I also do not understand your logic. And by all means, if you are in the position to hire a poor black teenager over a white suburban teen go ahead.
BenMcD Says:January 12th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
eac,
Why should an employer pay someone more than they’re worth?
TheRover Says:January 12th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Bflo Hodgepodge makes a very good point. Let people keep more of the money they do earn thru the earned income credit.
Fed Up In Bflo makes another one. Raising wages are passed onto the consumer, forcing the very same people who are targeted to be helped to pay ever more for the things they need. Its inflationary. Look around town and check out all the “new menus” at restaurants. The only thing new are the higher prices.
Jen should have hustled a bit more or worked at a busier place waiting tables.
The $6 an hour worker, I’d bet, is one making $52000 per year as a city, county, state or local muni worker.
The point is this, certain positions just don’t warrant much money. You can’t pay all restaurant workers, car wash people or gas station attendents $45000 per year because you would then be paying $68 for a salad, $72 for a car wash and $25 per gallon of gas. By being in a low wage job for a very long time does not mean you are “entitled” to higher and higher pay for the same job. It means you need to get off your ASS and get a better job that pays more! OR, get off your ASS, go to school and become more marketable ( this means learn something that will pay you better to you union types) Ask the wagonwheel maker if the min wage is going to help him much.
Wagonwheel Maker Says:January 12th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Nope … won’t help ME a bit ! Thanks Rover !
eac Says:January 12th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
I think the issue here is paying someone less than they’re worth, but.. are you kidding? Upper-level management positions in today’s largest & increasingly international corporations are amazingly overpaid. That fuckup at Home Depot got essentially fired and still walked off with what, some $20 Mil?
And, the movement of (for example) American jobs to India or Mexico is precisely because, on the other side of things, management will always pay labor the least it can possibly get away with, regardless.
People don’t hire people for charity, they hire people because they need them to make more money for themselves.
Fed-Up in Buffalo Says:January 12th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
“People don’t hire people for charity, they hire people because they need them to make more money for themselves. “
Don’t forget: to make money for the company too. At work tonight, I drew in more than what my pay check will be for the week & I worked 2 other days this week.
Michele J Says:January 13th, 2007 at 12:22 am
I agree with Jen & Fed up.. Not all minimum wage workers are students..
dave in Rocha Says:January 13th, 2007 at 1:55 am
EAC, your last comment is SPOT ON!
If companies were to really pay people what they think they’re worth, you’d be seeing wages on the order of $2-3 per hour. The sole purpose of business is to maximize profits. If they can do that by paying their low-end workers a pitifully small amount, it’s all good in their eyes.
I can understand that this might put a squeeze on some small businesses, but that’s why they’re also including the tax break to help offset this. This increase is really geared towards entities like WalMart. They’re in no danger of going out of business (though I can dream…), they can afford to pay their workers more.
eac Says:January 13th, 2007 at 2:25 am
Sorry, the asshat formerly of Home Depot may get a severance package of 210 million. I see here that the shareholders are trying to block it; their success or failure doesn’t really take away from the insanity of it.
ryan Says:January 13th, 2007 at 2:57 am
I’ll repeat myself.
If raising the minimum wage does not harm the economy, why not make it $1000 per hour?
The government, in its infinite wisdom, has decided that $7.25 is the wage to be made by those with few marketable skills. How did they come to a $7.25 conclusion? Was $7.24 too little? Was $7.26 too much? Why $7.25? Why not $1725.00? I’d like to see the empirical evidence.
Nobody has mentioned that the guy who made $9.25 per hour is now p*ssed and demanding a raise because his underlings have received a government mandated pay raise. Shouldn’t he be upwardly compensated also? Crap flows uphill.
One of these days the Keynesians will be exposed for their fraud. In the meantime those who understand the purest sense of economics will continue to contribute a decent portion of our income to charitable causes. Those with a political election fund to grind will continue to margalize the poor and use them for votes, and nothing more. Here’s another buck-fifty per hour. Good luck with that.
BenMcD Says:January 13th, 2007 at 9:02 am
eac,
Home Depot’s CEO situation is irrelevant. CEOs get paid a lot of money because they have a unique skill that garners them such wages. They make tremendous amounts of money for companies and increase the worth of their stock. If they were not worth the money they are getting, they wouldn’t get it. If people who are making minimum wage are worth more than that, then someone will offer them more. It’s that simple. You can look at it two ways. People really aren’t worth more than the lowest wage they are willing to accept, and people aren’t worth more than the highest wage they are able to get. Usually the wage they earn satisfies both conditions.
If a company can find cheaper labor in another country, they should go after it. If another country can do a better job than we can in a particular industry, then we should take advantage of it. In the long run it will make everyone better off here, as resources can be more efficiently allocated to the industries where we are superior.
dave in Rocha,
Isn’t the sole purpose of the worker to maximize his/her profits? Is this a good thing? If so, why is it good for the worker and not for the company. If not, why would one support the minimum wage?
Greg Says:January 13th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
When I was at Pizza Hut the minimum wage went up to the high $4.xx range from the low $4.xx range. They did cut hours to some degree and htat was a small increase in the wage. I definitely think there will be similar cuts with this increase at jobs that only pay minimum. I also think prices for items at places that pay minimum wage will likely go up now to cover the higher wages
eac Says:January 13th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Bullshit. A great many CEOs went to college with the right guy, or joined the right frat, or had the right father. Admittedly some are able executives, but regardless, there is absolutely no way upper management provides 1000x the value to a company as a laborer, but we regularly see their pay in that sort of range. It is odeous, and it is most certainly relevant: how much higher could Home Depot’s wages be if they weren’t throwing good money after bad on an asshat like that to the tune of 210 million dollars? Quite a bit!
Ryan, the 1000/hour minimum wage is a straw man and you know it. As for why $7.25 and not .24 or .26, that is again specious- I highly doubt there is an economic analysis out there with that level of precision; rather, I’m sure $7.25 is within a range- probably the lower end of the range–and was agreed upon as politically feasable. What’s new?
Derek J. Punaro Says:January 13th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Nobody gets to be the CEO of a multi-billion dollar global corporation by being in the right frat or having the right father. That does, however, work in politics.
Corporations are not governed by a single person. The shareholders approve these executives and their compensation packages. If you want a vote, all you have to do is buy a share of stock.
Typically the same people that bitch about corporate executive wages have no problem going to watch sporting events with players that make millions of dollars a year, or see movies with actors that make $20 million per picture.
Ray Says:January 13th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Anybody who celebrates in the minimum wage increase as a panacea for the rise in the cost of living is shortsighted to say the least and a pawn for political red herrings. If you understood why the cost of living continually goes up, then you would focus on fixing that instead of supporting fruitless exercises in political gimmickry.
eac Says:January 13th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Really? I don’t think Bush got Arbusto, or that sweat deal w/Harken through his competence, do you? Anyway, you say it does work in politics- the line between the two is ever-thinning: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, &c, have all been flitting back and forth between the corporate & the political world. The common denominator, of course, is money: 95% of races are determined by who has the most of it.
Don’t be silly, corporations are not democracies: if I own one share of Apple, I get one vote; if I own a few hundred thousand shares, as you know, not only do I get a few hundred thousand votes but I am also most likely on one board or another. Please. Don’t try and tell me the average investor ever has enough shares to steer a company, it’s just not so.
Doesn’t matter: whether one is a hypocrite or inconsistent in one’s behavior doesn’t invalidate one’s argument- you’re essentially making what is called an ad hominem attack, on the character rather than the argument.
For the record, though, those things you mention bother the crap out of me, and I do strive, with some imperfection, not to be a part of them. But I’m gonna watch the Sabres no matter what, sorry to say.
Mike In WNY Says:January 13th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
eac, you make a good case that shows government involvement in the economy is not a good thing. The answer isn’t more government, via the minimum wage. The answer is less government leading to a true free-market. Only then will the “real” value of labor and products be determined on a rational basis.
BenMcD Says:January 13th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
eac,
I’m curious. How do you determine the value of each individual worker?
Ray Says:January 14th, 2007 at 12:48 am
“I’m curious. How do you determine the value of each individual worker?”
BenMcD, I think it’s a matter of emotions, with the lefty’s there is certainly no thinking involved in determining the value of each individual worker. The economic realities the employer has to face or the wishes of the worker to decide how much he will work for never comes into play.
Their thinking is that having some congressmen write some words on piece of paper with some arbitrary higher minimum wage is going to someone’s life better.
eac doesn’t like Ryan’s question about why they don’t raise the minimum wage higher and how they arrive at $7.25/hr.
Why don’t the jerks in congress raise it higher? Why not $10.00. Is it because they know that it would backfire and create massive unemployment? I bet they do and that would be a black eye in their political career. So they raise it just a bit to a point where most people are already making at least that much because of market forces, not government force. The only people who will be hurt are the young and the unskilled poor who want a start somewhere for work experience. Nobody will miss them because their jobs and opportunities will not exist anyway or they will just go into the underground economy. Out of sight, out of mind.
The political jackass’s will play it up to make themselves look like hero’s to the little people. A decade down the road they start all over again for all its political vote getting.
People will just see that the cost of living is higher and somebody has to do something about it again. But do they know or even care who is causing the increase in the cost of living? I’d like to see the economic liberal’s here explain that one.
barney Says:January 14th, 2007 at 9:15 am
If left to the market forces and shareholders, workers would be paid as little as possible. If the workers cannot organize who is going to look out for them?
Is it fair that a CEO makes 210 million and the line worker makes 7.50 an hour? Does the CEO really add that much value?
As for sports if the player makes 10 million, i bet the owner is making that much or more, or the owner would go out of business.
Should the player only make 100k so the owner can make 1 billion?
At least the Democrats are trying, all the GOP did was give the rich tax cuts. The working poor are still waiting for the trickle down as social programs are cut, libraries are cut, arts funding is cut, parks funding is cut.
The millionaire who has the most tax breaks, shelters and lawyers can afford to pay more.
BenMcD Says:January 14th, 2007 at 9:21 am
“Is it fair that a CEO makes 210 million and the line worker makes 7.50 an hour? Does the CEO really add that much value?”
Yes, and yes.
realist Says:January 14th, 2007 at 10:25 am
I agree with Ben Mcd — the “little guy/worker” isn’t worth SHIT. They should just be thankful that they even HAVE a job. There should be NO minimum wage — just pay them what the hard working CEO thinks they should get.
And Punaro is right too — connections mean NOTHING in the business world.
Jay Says:January 14th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
CEO’s have more responsibility to than rank-and-file employees. This isn’t to say that rank-and-file employees aren’t important and owed some rewards by their employer, but those are set at the discretion of the company.
The CEO is responsible for overseeing the operations of the entire company, supervising other executives who handle millions, sometimes billions of dollars in assets. The CEO is also responsible for instilling vision into the company, predicting threats and capturing opportunities as they arise. They are the sole person held accountable by investors.
The rank-and-file employee’s job is important to the company, but a very, very small piece of it. Let’s consider your cubicle-working married-with-kids man or woman who works in fixed assets at M&T or HSBC. They have meaningful responsibilities, but is the whole company riding on his or her shoulders? He or she has a clearly defined set of responsibilities to do well, where the CEO has to contend with everything internally and externally.
While there are bad CEO’s, the kind of growth we’ve seen in the stock market over the past 12 months wouldn’t be possible if even a sizeable (not even a majority) amount were inept/bad. Connections help you get your foot in the door the same way a good diploma may - after the first year or two, it’s all based upon your record, and I don’t see many
LC Scotty Says:January 14th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
http://brisketforchucklehead.blogspot.com/2007/01/minimum-wage.html
LC Scotty Says:January 14th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
http://brisketforchucklehead.blogspot.com/2007/01/minimum-wage.html
The Buffalo Pundit has posted about the recent increase in the federally mandated minimum wage, and the comments are piling up fast. I will address problems in BP’s post and a few of the more wrong heaaded responses here.
“Frankly, if the Republicans believe that benefits can trickle down to the poor if the taxes of the rich go down, then it follows that more money in the pockets of the poorest workers will enable them to buy more things, thus growing the economy. If it trickles down, it can trickle up. Who fancies a trickle?”
Unfortunately, BP has it all backwards.
realist Says:January 14th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
One hand washes the other, Jay. Is the “overseer” more important than the person actually accomplishing the task ? In your world I guess the answer is yes. If say, the CEO of Walmart didn’t show up to work for the next week - would anybody notice ? What if the minimum wage line employees didn’t show up ? The stores would close down. Now tell me how little of a contribution the rank-and-file are . I have seen many instances where the boss is an idiot, but things get done because of the dedication of line employees and middle managers.
eac Says:January 15th, 2007 at 12:21 am
Well… I guess I’ll fling some more poo.
I perceive the crux of disagreement is on the idea that any gov’t intervention in the market is good- or bad. It is a matter of speculation still among quite advanced economists as to whether a completely free market serves the collective interest best; it is less contentious that a completely free market serves the individual best, and it is a matter of fact that there are no truly free markets.
I feel we are better served by pursuing our collective interest. It seems many here feel otherwise. There’s no “solving” that.
eac Says:January 15th, 2007 at 1:03 am
I make a good case that sombunall gov’t involvement in the market is not a good thing. There is, naturally, a continuum of cooperation from none to, I suppose, unitarianism- fascism, I guess?. Anyway, we disagree on that boundary. But while I tend to think markets should be as free as possible, I have absolutely no faith in the idea that they should be completely free. The point of a company isn’t to ensure the collective welfare of the state; the point of a government is.
The endpoint of your type of thinking is anarcho-capitalist libertarianism. I think it’s as lunatic as communism.
Mike In WNY Says:January 15th, 2007 at 7:19 am
The problem with your continuum is that the boundary is constantly being pushed further toward collectivism. Collectivism is a convenient concept that can be used to jusity just about any government action. It is a direct attack on individual liberty. Hitler (Alan, pardon the reference, no need to go off on it
) used the concept of collectivism to consolidate power in the wake of the Reichstag Fire.
LC Scotty Says:January 15th, 2007 at 10:20 am
eac,
That was probably a bit harsh on my part-I apologize. Your subsequent comments on this thread have been meat and potatoes, not that my approval is some sort of imprimatur. I still think they’re wrong, but we are talking about conjectures, leaving plenty of room for potentially valid, mutually exclusive sets of ideas.
Cheers
Ray Says:January 15th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
eac: “I have absolutely no faith in the idea that they should be completely free. The point of a company isn’t to ensure the collective welfare of the state; the point of a government is.”
Government cannot ensure the collective welfare, it has been tried and still is…its called socialism & communism, the thing you call lunatic, but you still support its concept of collective power to limit the freedom of the individual. You in fact open the door for that kind of lunacy.
A truly free country requires a government whose function is to protect individual freedom, not trample on it itself or allow one group to trample on the liberties of others by political means. You lack of faith blinds you even understand that concept.
eac Says:January 16th, 2007 at 12:12 am
Libertarians themselves disagree on the extent of gov’t ability (and utility) in ensuring collective welfare; Ray represents the extreme wing. But I don’t want a Company “looking out” for me, thank you very much. Only a government can ensure the collective welfare of the people, which frankly, is much more important than your ability to buy a Hummer and blow Iraqi ashes out yr. tailpipe. as you lug yr. jetski to the beach to poison the water and the fish.
C’mon… Absolute collectiveism is as horrible as absolute individualism, and neither turn out to be possible off-paper anyway.
BenMcD Says:January 16th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Define collective welfare.
Mike In WNY Says:January 16th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
eac, the point isn’t a company looking after you. Individual liberty includes self-responsibility.
The statement that Libertarians disagree about the government’s ability to ensure collective welfare is a biased statement. Democrats, Republicans, Socialists and Progressives don’t all agree on the proper extent of government intrusion in our lives.