# So does the board skew left? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 25, 2005, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457 "2005-05-25T17:23:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 26
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/501 "2005-06-08T20:29:59Z")
> [@The Black Hand Gang](#): > > Wealth inequality in the US is already in the top 3 in the world, and increasing. The deficit is growing ever more unimaginably large. An extremely small fraction of society is accumulating most of the money, while the nation as a whole sinks into the Marianas Trench of debt. Assuming for a moment that this is true (and that it doesn’t simply mean that both the rich and poor are getting richer in the US…the rich are just getting richer fasters), how does this relate to either the thread ( So does the board skew left?) or the last 6 page hijack (i.e. is the Minimum Wage wealth re-distribution)? Or was this just a drive by to point out how evil capitalism in general and the US in particular is? I’m curious how you figure this fits in. > [@The Black Hand Gang](#): > > The comparison to the Robber Barons is apt. It is naive to think that the only reason that happened was because government officials were exceptionally corrupt back then, and now we have nothing to worry about. I’d like to believe that. But again, the practical and logical concerns of doing what is best for the country have to outweigh the idealistic and naive belief in the purity and infallibility of our market and government. IS there a comparison to the ‘Robber Barons’? What is it exactly? Are the laws similar today? Do todays wealthy control more or less of the GNP than they did back then? Do they have more or less political power? Are there more wealthy at the top end today than there were back in the day…and what does this mean one way or the other? Is the middle class larger or smaller today (as a percentage of the total population) than it was then? How about the number of poor (again, as a percentage of the population)…and are todays poor better or worse off in absolute terms than they were in the day? You toss out that its comparable…without actually bothering to make the comparisons. Since you obviously want to hijack the thread on yet another tangent…could you fill in some of those comparisons? -XT ---
**Author:** ![I\_don\_t\_care\_about\_your\_cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f08c70/32.png) [@I\_don\_t\_care\_about\_your\_cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_don_t_care_about_your_cat)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/502 "2005-06-08T20:31:49Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > No, I’m afraid not. Your cornfield needs a new scarecrow. Speaking of strawmen: > [@Liberal](#): > > Whereas you favor the imposition of artificial wage levels (which must, of necessity, be coupled with artificial subsidy of corporate profits — corporate welfare) I disagree that corporate subsidies are a necessary companion to minimum wage laws. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/503 "2005-06-08T20:38:27Z")
> [@I don't care about your cat](#): > > I disagree that corporate subsidies are a necessary companion to minimum wage laws. Then how do the corporations afford the payroll expense that you would impose on them? Do you advocate that they fire a portion of their low-wage workforce? Let’s look at this another way. Suppose government imposed upon you that you would pay an arbitrary minimal amount to selected merchants with whom you presently deal and whom it has deemed to be making less money than other merchants. How might that affect your economic lifestyle? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/504 "2005-06-08T20:55:49Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > …In the meantime, there is nothing stopping you from marching into the poorest neighborhood you can find and handing a check to the poorest family there — seeing as how that would make you content and all. This sort of _ad hominem_ snark used to be beneath you. Work on that, won’t you? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Black\_Hand\_Gang](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/aeb1de/32.png) [@The\_Black\_Hand\_Gang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Black_Hand_Gang)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/505 "2005-06-08T22:06:06Z")
> [@](#): > > Assuming for a moment that this is true (and that it doesn’t simply mean that both the rich and poor are getting richer in the US…the rich are just getting richer fasters), Mexico and South Africa are the only ones with greater wealthy inequality. And no, it is not because everyone is getting richer. The average income of the bottom 90% of Americans went down 7% from 1973 to 2000. Meanwhile, the top 1% average income went up 148%. Of course, this is also a redistribution of wealth. Just not one that gets talked about. Furthermore, the fact that the US is more unequal than nearly any other country is in itself harmful. Studies have shown that things like health, child poverty, and longest work hours are more closely related to vast inequality than to overall wealth. That is why the US lags behind in these areas despite our overall larger wealth. It is also arguable that it is impossible to have a healthy democracy when all the money is in the hands of a few. I think this is true to an extent, as money inevitably goes hand in hand with power. The comparison to the robber barons was not made to say that we are living in a new age of robber barons. It was to point out how naive it is to believe robber barons only existed because of exceptionally corrupt government officials. In fact, the robber barons were far less dependant on government than most people think. To a large extent, they were just better capitalists than others. In some cases, they actually competed with others who were getting government subsidies, and still won. Robber barons are indicative of the flaws in capitalism (the worst system, except for everything else), not the result of a historically unique corrupt government. “Is minimum wage wealth redistribution” is not an interesting question. Of course it is, indirectly, but all capitalism too is wealth redistribution. By that same standard, intellectual property laws are indirect wealth redistribution. We restrict people from, for example, making their own cheap copy of a drug, forcing them to give their money to the company with the rights to it. Since the very existence of a government which regulates the market implies wealth redistribution (and I don’t see anyone advocating eliminating the government altogether), the question is not “should wealth be redistributed” but “what kind of a system is successful”. We have intellectual property laws because we think they are successsful; they encourage discovery and progress. But a system which creates nearly the greatest inequality in the world (with all the health and poverty problems that implies) while building up a monumental debt is perhaps not the best. The system needs work. This is not, by the way, either a “left” or “right” position. It is a success-based analysis, as opposed to the ideal-based analysis most in this thread ascribe to. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/506 "2005-06-09T00:03:18Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > This sort of _ad hominem_ snark used to be beneath you. Work on that, won’t you? Luc, I, more than anyone, appreciate your delightful witticisms. I recall Gaudere’s description of Tris’s posts as “butterflies”. Many of yours are much the same. But in that particular one, you, upon your own volition, I presume, choose to stand upon a pedestal and preach. You declared yourself the purveyor of “common decency”, as you painted a portrait of yourself standing in a poor neighborhood and seeing a little girl lifted from poverty by, one presumes, a benign government that has wrestled filthy loot away from robber barons and put it to a good cause. In fact, you went on to equate advocates of free markets with advocates of robber baronism. I believe that you called me names, only with prettier words and a more shadowy nuance. I do honestly encourage you to put your effort where your fingers are, and work toward your contentment. If Thoreau had written _Walden_ while living in Manhattan, who would have listened to him? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/507 "2005-06-09T00:10:22Z")
> [@The Black Hand Gang](#): > > Since the very existence of a government which regulates the market implies wealth redistribution… Faulty premise. A government may regulate a market only to the extent that it suppresses the initiation of force and deception, without meddling in the dispensation of its financial transactions. The presumption that government coercion is a metaphysical necessity is audiatur et altera pars — maybe not a fallacy per se, but certainly concealing information that is germane to the argument. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/508 "2005-06-09T00:41:37Z")
> [@Lib](#): > > …posts as “butterflies”. Many of yours are much the same… Damn, you really know how to hurt a guy. > [@](#): > > …choose to stand upon a pedestal and preach… Well, yeah. My political views are a wholly owned subsidiary of my moral values. Aren’t yours? > [@](#): > > …declared yourself the purveyor of “common decency”… An _advocate_ of common decency. “Purveyor” is your own distortion. > [@](#): > > … by, one presumes, a benign government… By a benign citizenry. Expressing its benign will through a government they own. > [@](#): > > …and work toward your contentment… What, and leave you and yours behind? I should refuse to share, and leave you bereft of the deep moral satisfaction? Perish the thought! ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/509 "2005-06-09T07:17:25Z")
[Here](http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issuebrief201) is an explanation of the minimum wage from the Economic Policy Institute, under a section entitle “The purpose of the minimum wage”: > [@](#): > > \*\* Everyone should have the opportunity to earn a decent wage. No American should be compelled to work at a rate that, assuming full-time labor, every weekday, all year long, amounts to the $10,712 that the current minimum wage provides. This is equally as true for a middle-class youth working to raise money for college as it is for a single mother supporting a family. The minimum wage is not just about helping the impoverished. It is about fairness, the value of work, and the opportunities that work provides. > > Furthermore, no employer should be allowed to unreasonably profit by exploiting the lack of negotiating power of low-wage workers. The free market fails to set a fair price when one side holds all the bargaining chips. In another context, this is why laws exist against monopolies. If only one supplier supplies a good, it can charge more than the good is worth because the purchaser is powerless to obtain it elsewhere. Low-wage workers are in the opposite position of the monopolist. They lack the skills that command higher wages, but, because they need to work to survive, they cannot withhold their labor from the market. The monopolist can set the price at almost whatever level it wants, while the low-wage worker must take almost whatever is offered for his or her labor. Minimum wages exist for the same reason that laws against monopolies exist they deal with situations in which the market fails to set fair prices. > > But beyond the principle of valuing work and the economic rationale of correcting for market failures, the minimum wage provides a concrete benefit. Not surprisingly, low-wage workers tend to live in low-income households. Thus, raising the minimum wage provides income support to families in need. While it is important to understand that the minimum wage should not be judged solely on its efficiency at targeting low-income families, research shows that it performs well at doing just that.\*\* Note the absence of the word “redistribution.” Nor does it appear in [this](http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_viewpoints_minwagetestimony) discussion. Here is the [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage) entry for “minimum wage.” Again note that minimum wages are not referred to in terms of wealth redistribution programs. The wiki article _does_, however, briefly touch upon the subject of wage subsidies, i.e., the idea of supplementing low-income earnings with a government bonus. _That_ would be a wealth redistribution program as it is classically defined. Then I tried Googling +wealth+redistribution+program. Not much help, but I did stumble across this Wikipedia discussion of wealth _distribution_, which provides a standard list redistribution programs: > [@](#): > > \*\* Furthermore, in today’s societies, much wealth distribution and redistribution is the result of government policies and programs. Government policies like the progressivity or regressivity of the tax system can redistribute wealth to the poor or the rich respectively. Government programs like “disaster relief” transfer wealth to people that have suffered loss due to a natural disaster. Social security transfers wealth from the young to the old. Fighting a war transfers wealth to certain sectors of society. Public education transfers wealth to families with children in public schools. Public road construction transfers wealth from people that do not use the roads to those people that do (and to those that build the roads). Certain people resent having to contribute to some or all of these programs, and disparagingly label them social engineering.\*\* Progressive taxation, disaster relief, social security, public education, and public works are generally recognized as redistributive programs (not war, though). On the other hand, the paragraph fails to mention welfare payments, the prototype of wealth redistribution. Unfortunately, none of this really proves much either way. Is there an economics professor in the house? **xt** : I hope my last response to you didn’t come off sounding harsh or snarky. That was absolutely not my intention. Please take it in the spirit it was meant – as good-natured ribbing. – S. ---
**Author:** ![I\_don\_t\_care\_about\_your\_cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f08c70/32.png) [@I\_don\_t\_care\_about\_your\_cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_don_t_care_about_your_cat)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/510 "2005-06-09T07:36:26Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Then how do the corporations afford the payroll expense that you would impose on them? Do you advocate that they fire a portion of their low-wage workforce? That _I would_ impose on them? 😕 You _are_ aware that there is a minimum wage in effect right now in the U.S., and that companies _routinely_ meet their payroll expenses quite satisfactorily, aren’t you? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/511 "2005-06-09T08:12:16Z")
> [@I don't care about your cat](#): > > That _I would_ impose on them? 😕 You _are_ aware that there is a minimum wage in effect right now in the U.S., and that companies _routinely_ meet their payroll expenses quite satisfactorily, aren’t you? Some do; some don’t. Mine didn’t. But those that are most profitable and powerful get the welfare that you say you wouldn’t give them. When Ralph Nader and the Cato Institute agree about something, then it might give you pause to think. Or, who knows, it might not. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/512 "2005-06-09T11:50:37Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Some do; some don’t. Mine didn’t. But those that are most profitable and powerful get the welfare that you say you wouldn’t give them. When Ralph Nader and the Cato Institute agree about something, then it might give you pause to think. Or, who knows, it might not. Oh, whenever the Cato Institute advocates something, I ALWAYS start thinking … about what they’re up to and how the misleading is being done. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/513 "2005-06-09T11:57:36Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Oh, whenever the Cato Institute advocates something, I ALWAYS start thinking … about what they’re up to and how the misleading is being done. You’ve described my reaction to your posts. 😃 But if you and Sam Stone agree on something, then I will take notice. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/514 "2005-06-09T16:22:31Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > I hope my last response to you didn’t come off sounding harsh or snarky. That was absolutely not my intention. Please take it in the spirit it was meant – as good-natured ribbing. No worries and no offense taken. 🙂 I always enjoy your posts, even when I disagree. I think I’m going to bow out of the MW re-distribution/not re-distribution debate at this point (with a few final thoughts…_listens to the groans_) instead of following up on your cites, unless someone wants to start a new thread on this in GD. 11 pages is enough. My one comment is that while your cites don’t say MW is a wealth re-distribution system, they don’t (afaict with a quick skim) say the opposite either. And from your last cite, I think this could be interpereted that MW COULD easily be looked at as a wealth re-distribution system: > [@](#): > > Furthermore, in today’s societies, much wealth distribution and redistribution is the result of government policies and programs. They go into several examples, but I don’t think its an exhaustive list. And MW certainly IS ‘the result of government policies and programs’…its the government setting and enforcing a minimum wage level. To me if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…its probably a duck. MW LOOKS like a wealth re-distribution system to me based on my own world view. I respect that YMMV on this (as appearently does I don’t care about your cat’s). And of course none of this gets into how good or bad MW as a system IS in the US…we have only been talking about if it is or is not wealth re-distribution. -XT ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/515 "2005-06-09T16:39:26Z")
The Board doesn’t skew Right or Left. Instead it gyrates about Right-Left axis at the frequency of a whole bunch of revolutions per any arbitrary time unit one can imagine, thus creating its own elective affinity field in which diversely endowed intellects of its members are suspended while also subjected to perpetual itinerant fluctuations between opposite polarities. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/516 "2005-06-09T16:51:25Z")
**xt** : > [@](#): > > _I always enjoy your posts, even when I disagree._ Thanks. Backatcha. ---
**Author:** ![I\_don\_t\_care\_about\_your\_cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f08c70/32.png) [@I\_don\_t\_care\_about\_your\_cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_don_t_care_about_your_cat)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/517 "2005-06-09T17:37:18Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Some do; some don’t. Mine didn’t. Well I’m sure it feels good for you to blame your business failure on those evil lib’rals and their evil minimum-wage, but did you ever consider that maybe there was _another_ reason? If your business model was based on having to pay folks shitty wages, then maybe you needed a better model. MILLIONS of folks run successful business EVERY DAY, and they manage just fine while paying employees a decent wage. I’m sorry yours failed, but y’know - shit happens. What do you want, a guarantee against business failure? > [@](#): > > But those that are most profitable and powerful get the welfare that you say you wouldn’t give them. When Ralph Nader and the Cato Institute agree about something, then it might give you pause to think. Or, who knows, it might not. So you think that dropping the minimum wage would rectify the situation of the most profitable and powerful companies getting handouts from the government? How would that work exactly? Wouldn’t a more direct solution be to, oh…I don’t know, _stop giving handouts to the most profitable and powerful companies?_ You _do_ realize that the “liberals” are every bit as much against corporate welfare as you are, right? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/518 "2005-06-09T18:04:54Z")
> [@I don't care about your cat](#): > > Well I’m sure it feels good for you to blame your business failure on those evil lib’rals and their evil minimum-wage, but did you ever consider that maybe there was _another_ reason? I don’t think you know what a liberal is. > [@](#): > > If your business model was based on having to pay folks shitty wages, then maybe you needed a better model. MILLIONS of folks run successful business EVERY DAY, and they manage just fine while paying employees a decent wage. I’m sorry yours failed, but y’know - shit happens. What do you want, a guarantee against business failure? Um, I think you misunderstood my remark. It was not a company I owned. My company, as in the company I worked for. It did not have the political clout to secure corporate welfare, and it was forced to hire workers full time at minimum wage even though they were only needed for part time work. A meddling bureaucrat determined that those flunkies deserved full benefits. > [@](#): > > So you think that dropping the minimum wage would rectify the situation of the most profitable and powerful companies getting handouts from the government? How would that work exactly? Wouldn’t a more direct solution be to, oh…I don’t know, _stop giving handouts to the most profitable and powerful companies?_ Both should be dropped: the minimum wage and the welfare. > [@](#): > > You _do_ realize that the “liberals” are every bit as much against corporate welfare as you are, right? Once you have figured out that you’re a socialist rather than a liberal, would you mind answering some of the questions I’ve asked you? ---
**Author:** ![I\_don\_t\_care\_about\_your\_cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f08c70/32.png) [@I\_don\_t\_care\_about\_your\_cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_don_t_care_about_your_cat)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/519 "2005-06-09T18:44:21Z")
O.K., I promised to finish with Shodan’s post. > [@Shodan](#): > > As far as I can tell, I have explained why I think it is at least twice. Oh, don’t be like that, sweetie. You asked me to explain something that I had already addressed numerous times, and I happily did so. > [@](#): > > **Bricker** ’s question was a good one. Would you agree that a government rule that you were obliged to hire one employee out of fifteen to do nothing is a redistribution of wealth? I don’t get the question. Why would you hire someone to do nothing? Isn’t “hiring someone to do nothing” the equivalent of giving him money? Kind of skews the question, doesn’t it? > [@](#): > > Well, I’ll have one more crack at it. > > Minimum wage laws are a redistribution of wealth in the following sense: > [ul][li]Ownership of money or anything else consists of the exclusive right to decide how and if to spend that money.[/li] (1) No, there are things you can’t spend your money on. As I pointed out earlier, I cannot buy a nuclear bomb. (2) You own your money, but you don’t own your workers. You are not free to do as you please with your workers. For example, you can’t whip them to make them work faster (in fact, not even if they “agree” to allow themselves to be whipped). > [@](#): > > [li]Wealth is redistributed whenever it is spent for the benefit of someone else. [/li] That’s a little broad, don’t you think? If you’re gonna go with that definition, then ALL wages are wealth redistribution. So isn’t it simply redundant to call the minimum wage “wealth redistribution”? I guess I don’t see the point. It’s like saying “wages are wages”. > [@](#): > > [li]MW laws are an effort on the part of government to compel employers to spend more on an employee than the employee would be able to obtain by bidding on the open market.[/li] True. > [@](#): > > [li]That compulsion therefore represents a loss of the right to decide how to spend part of the employer’s money.[/li] No such right exists. You do not have an unlimited right to decide how to spend your money. I don’t have the right to hire a hit man, for example. > [@](#): > > [li]MW laws are intended to benefit those workers who receive more as a minimum wage than they would otherwise receive.[/li] True. > [@](#): > > [/ul]Minimum wage laws are therefore a redistribution of wealth. QED. Hmmm…you didn’t really need all those intervening points. Couldn’t we pare down your argument to: 1. Wealth is redistributed whenever it is spent for the benefit of someone else. 2. ALL wages are wealth redistribution. 3. Minimum wage is a subset of all wages, and therefore is wealth redistribution. Of course, you have to assume the definition in (1), which seems over-broad to me. > [@](#): > > Yes, pretty much. Providing I am being compelled to spend my money against my will, and for the benefit of someone else, yes. But MW is not “compelling you to spend your money against your will”; rather it’s setting _conditions_ on how you spend your money, _should_ you decide to spend it on a certain thing. So it doesn’t fit your definition. Taxes and fines do, but not MW. > [@](#): > > Isn’t it also the case that they have the right not to work for me, if they think they can get more somewhere else? Funny, I just noticed this, after Libertarian was previously huffing and puffing angrily about how no Libertarian has ever made such an argument.😃 > [@](#): > > Slavery has been dead for some time. Um…I agree? Not sure what your point is. > [@](#): > > I would say they are on the same continuum, and based also at least partially on the notion “From each according to his abilities; from each according to his needs”. > > I would call it a partial implementation of the same principle. I disagree. I think you’re WAY stretching it. And that was initially my point in this thread. Whether you guys admit it or not, I’ve noticed that Libertarians are constantly pushing the envelope on comparing things to communism. I’m sorry, but not _everything_ that you disagree with is communism. A person can be more liberal than you without being a communist. By the same token, I admit that a person can be more conservative than me without being a fascist. > [@](#): > > The presumption is that mimimum wage workers need at least $5.15 an hour, no matter what their circumstances, and that employers can always afford to pay at least that much. Those who cannot afford to pay that much are SOL, unless they relocate to the Third World or something. Equally SOL, interestingly, are the workers whose labor is worth _less_ than $5.15 per hour. They simply don’t get hired. So they haven’t really benefited from MW laws, unless you count having no job as better than having a job that doesn’t pay very much. I don’t really see it that way. I think businesses have a certain amount of work that needs to be done, and need to hire a certain number of workers. The natural inclination of a business is to try to maximize profit and minimize expense - you’re not gonna change that. So to that end, the business is going to get the _cheapest possible_ labor that will successfully do the job that needs to be done. IF there are more workers than there are jobs available (which is usually the case with unskilled menial jobs), a business will be able to TAKE ADVANTAGE of that fact, and will have the leverage to force people to work for an extremely low wage. Actually, the article Mr. S quoted explains it very well, so I’d just be redundant if I go into any more detail. But with a MW in force, the business STILL must hire workers to do the job. The only difference is that the workers will get a _reasonable_ wage instead of a _unreasonable_ one. How are workers SOL? I don’t see it. And I submit that NOBODY’s labor is worth less than $5.15 per hour. Try living on $5.15 an hour; I guarantee you wouldn’t like it. I disagree with your assessment that there is a pool of workers worth “less than MW”, who “don’t get hired”. They DO get hired, but they get MW instead of a poor wage. A business can’t just not hire workers; the work wouldn’t get done and they’d go out of business. Contrary to **Liberal’s** doom & gloom scenario, I’m just not seeing the massive business failures that your theory would predict. > [@](#): > > Very few workers in the US work for mimimum wage, nonetheless. About 3%, IIRC. (I can dig you up a cite if you like.) And that’s good. It shows that it’s not set too high. If MW were set too high, a large percentage of workers would be making MW, and it _would_ be intefering with the economy. But as it stands, I don’t see any evidence that it is. > [@](#): > > I don’t think libertarians are arguing that a free market guarantees unlimited choices and opportunities. That’s not what I said. Please read it again. I didn’t say Libertarians _argue_ that, I said it’s a FACT - A fact which renders the Libertarian ideal as impossible in the real world. Libertarianism won’t work BECAUSE people don’t have unlimited choices and opportunity. > [@](#): > > What they are suggesting is a market where all the choices are uncoerced by non-intrinsic agencies. That is to say, widgets in Libertopia cost $1.98 because $1.98 represents the average cost resulting from the uncoerced agreeement of suppliers, employers, and workers on how much each is willing to take. Not because the government has decided that widget-makers _ought_ to get more than they do, and therefore has legislated that they should get a 50% raise. Right, and I’m saying that will never exist in the real world, and I don’t see any reason why it _ought_ to exist. If an unskilled laborer is being exploited for $1 an hour, that is NOT an uncoerced agreement. Perhaps we could buy widgets for $1.98 by exploiting unskilled labor for $1 an hour, but I think it’s in the greater public good not to do so. ---
**Author:** ![I\_don\_t\_care\_about\_your\_cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f08c70/32.png) [@I\_don\_t\_care\_about\_your\_cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_don_t_care_about_your_cat)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/520 "2005-06-09T18:55:58Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I don’t think you know what a liberal is. Now THAT’s funny. I know about your username change. You are pretty much all alone in your assessment of what a liberal is. But go ahead and continue to think that you’re right and the entire rest of the world is wrong. > [@](#): > > Um, I think you misunderstood my remark. It was not a company I owned. My company, as in the company I worked for. So substitute “company you worked for” in my remarks. No biggie. > [@](#): > > It did not have the political clout to secure corporate welfare, and it was forced to hire workers full time at minimum wage even though they were only needed for part time work. A meddling bureaucrat determined that those flunkies deserved full benefits. Is somebody cooking? I smell red herring. Since when, exactly, were we talking about _benefits_? Or having to hire full time? You’re really confusing your subjects. > [@](#): > > Once you have figured out that you’re a socialist rather than a liberal, would you mind answering some of the questions I’ve asked you? Yeah, great argument - “Yer a commie”. :rolleyes: I can see why so many people are complaining about your posting style, and why they devote entire threads to it. I guess it’s a step up from quoting my entire post and writing “bullshit”, but not much… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457.md?page=25) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457.md?page=27)