It is not coercion, that's an exaggerated label. If enough people really hated taxes, either one of the two major parties would adjust their policies in the hope of being elected, or a new political party would rise to power. Part of democracy is that the majority does guide most of the decision-making that goes on. Is it ideal? Probably not, but I think that we must acknowledge that we're essentially a society. Everything we do in life impacts on someone else in some way, sometimes to the extent that free will can't overcome the choices of others. It pays to recognise this, in politics as well as life.
It is coercion, by definition taxes are coercive. If they weren't coercive, and they were voluntary then they wouldn't be called taxes, it would just be called donations. You just do not want to acknowledge it because it is inconvenient to your argument.
If enough people really hated taxes, either one of the two major parties would adjust their policies in the hope of being elected, or a new political party would rise to power.
If people really wanted to pay taxes, then give them a choice, and we will see who pays. Secondly you don't take into account the imperfections of the political market. There are two major parties, and their policies are
bundled. You cannot pick and choice the economic policies of Liberal and the social policies of Labor. It's a take-it-or-leave it bundle. Second, you also didn't take into account the fact that in political market, it is rational for individuals to be ignorant of the policies due to the significant information costs and the small chance that their one vote will make a difference.
Part of democracy is that the majority does guide most of the decision-making that goes on. Is it ideal? Probably not, but I think that we must acknowledge that we're essentially a society.
How does acknowledging that we are "society" justify the forced and involuntary confiscation of the fruits of an individual’s labour using the coercive powers of government? Society is simply a collection of individuals. I will acknowledge that. But it doesn't follow from that positive statement that therefore the government should coercively confiscate of the fruits of an individual’s labour. Your argument doesn't logically follow.
The hard evidence shows that a minimum wage law reduces the number of jobs available.
The "hard evidence" says nothing of the sort! There may well be a correlation between enstating the minimum wage and a rise in unemployemnt, I'm not going to dispute that.
No, the study found disemployment effects.
As I alluded to earlier, statistics do not show the whole picture. If the amount of people employed stays the same but the amount of people joining the workforce rises, there is going to be an artifical rise in the unemployment rate also. This can be seen currently - the unemployemnt rate has moved from 4.2% to 4.3%, but more people are employed now than what they were a year ago. This is because the participation rate has risen.
So what? How does that even address the findings of the 28 credible studies that have found negative employment effects associated with a minimum wage. You are just saying how the unemployment rate can increase. How does that show a positive employment effect associated with minimum wages?
And don't you think that instilling the minimum wage could potentially attract more workers to the workforce if it means that they can make a living from doing so? And so that they don't have to value their worth as a worker to be below the poverty line? Admittedly, the minimum wage can have a number of effects, just like almost everything in real-world economics - but my suggestion is just as valid as yours.
If you suggestion as just as valid then why did you feel the need to point it out? It's validity will do its own work. Secondly, you haven't provided any credible or objective evidence to support your claims that a minimum wage law will have a positive employment effect. David Neumark and William Wasche's paper discussing over 90 recent studies on the effect of minimum wages on employment, including 4 studies from Australia found that:
very few - if any - studies that provide convincing evidence of positive employment effects of minimum wages, especially from those studies that focus on the broader groups (rather than a narrow industry) for which the competitive model predicts disemployment effects.
And also, while the research is apparently there, we have no reason to think that no minimum wage is best.
That's conveniently shifting the onus of proof. What evidence is there to support the contention that a minimum wage law is best?
I'm not convinced that it would be for the best.
You do not need to be convinced either.
Theoretically, your agument is viable, but there's no real world examples to back it up.
That's intellectual dishonesty. My argument isn't simply theoritical, I have provided again and again empirical evidence to counter the claim that a minimum wage law benefits society. The most substantial piece of research being David Neumark and William Wasche's paper discussing over 90 recent studies on the effect of minimum wages on employment, including 4 studies from Australia.
I just keep thinking back to Britain during the Industrial Revolution. What's to say that society won't go back there?
That's an hyperbole. What credible evidence do you have to support the claim that Australia will go back to being like "Britain during the Industrial Revolution" if the minimum wage laws were abolished?
Home
Help
Search
Login
