What price minimum wage?

[Collin Li]

Unfair dismissal laws do not allow anything of that nature: a 2 week notice before you're sacked.

They're about providing reasons that must be checked by slow bureaucracy.

[brendan]

Well thats what is deemed to be "fair resignation". 2 weeks notice gives the employer ample time to start a hiring process to compensate for any inconvenience that arises from resignations in my example.

yeah but unfair dismissal laws don't just allow employers to sack whomever they want for whatever reason as long as there is 2 weeks notice. i'm talking unfair resignation laws analogous to unfair dismissal laws.

[brendan]

Unfair dismissal is when someone is fired without a good cause, such as being dismissed for leaving work early because their child was taken into hospital or something.

Why the hell not? If i have a business and I want to fire someone why the heck not? It's my god damn business. If you have unfair dismissal then to be fair you have to have unfair resignation as well?

Technically, yeah. Many people have contracts or have to give ample notice if they decide to leave.

And brendan, taxpayer money pays for welfare and retraining.

It's taxpayer money? How are taxes collected? Can i choose to not pay it and not receive anything?

Do you propose not receiving street lights? Or a defence or police force? Do you propose letting people go homeless? Do you propose not paying for prision facilities for the increase in criminals due to homelessness?

I have proposed no such thing. Where have I have made such proposals? Furthermore, why do you not highlight how taxes are collected? Why do not tell us all?

[Eriny]

Look, I really don't see your point. We all know how taxes are collected, I don't see how that's relevant.

[brendan]

Look, I really don't see your point. We all know how taxes are collected, I don't see how that's relevant.

It very much is so. There is no money fairy. There is no process by which any government can give something for nothing, but through the forced and involuntary confiscation of the fruits of an individual’s labour using the coercive powers of government. Is that so irrelevant? Is it so irrelevant that inherent in any government intervention is the involuntary confiscation of a person's property required to fund such intervention? Or is it inconvenient for the sponsors of government intervention to mention it?

[Collin Li]

Clearly, this is an ideological battle between those who believe the government grants us our property rights (i.e.: they tell us how much of our income we can earn, to what extent we can utilise our capital, and how we employ) versus those who believe the individual grants the government the right to help protect our property rights.

[Eriny]

Look, I really don't see your point. We all know how taxes are collected, I don't see how that's relevant.

It very much is so. There is no money fairy. There is no process by which any government can give something for nothing, but through the forced and involuntary confiscation of the fruits of an individual’s labour using the coercive powers of government. Is that so irrelevant? Is it so irrelevant that inherent in any government intervention is the involuntary confiscation of a person's property required to fund such intervention? Or is it inconvenient for the sponsors of government intervention to mention it?

But you essentially benefit from this so called confiscation. If you were given the choice, would you pay taxes? I would, I imagine most people would. But as soon as the government starts to fund non-excludables, it means that everybody has to pay or else they'd benefit from somebody elses stuff. And technically we do have some choice. As in, if the electrorate didn't want to pay taxes, they'd vote in a government that wouldn't make them pay.  Also, if the electorate doesn't like what the government is buying, they'll be voted out too. I guess the idea is essentially community-spirited, I don't see it as confiscation or a way to strip me of my basic freedoms, I see it as a way in which we can all pool our money together for something we'll all own/use/need. It's practical.

[Collin Li]

As in, if the electrorate didn't want to pay taxes, they'd vote in a government that wouldn't make them pay.

I see this as an attack on individual liberties. If the electorate wanted a national religion, the government should not allowed to install one. The constitution is supposed to shield us from the tyranny of the majority.

For the purpose of social welfare, it is not a non-excludable, so it should be voluntary. I believe that national defence has a case for taxes at the federal level, while most public goods like roads should be funded at the state level.

[Eriny]

I don't really think social welfare is truly non-excludable though. Everyone is affected by poverty through crime rates and so on.

And I agree that the majority isn't necessarily right, but if a suggestion isn't constitutional, it's probably not going to happen.

[Collin Li]

If you were given the choice, would you pay taxes? I would, I imagine most people would.

Good, then give people that choice.

It is probably true that poverty is related to crime, and so I agree that there is a positive externality involved with helping poor people. However, it is unlikely a government can bring a more efficient outcome than a free market does. There will be misdirected funds: it will be hard to capture the groups that will decrease the crime rate the most, so the policy may not actually decrease the crime rate very much. The dead-weight losses of taxation and redistribution may very well outweigh the benefits of this policy. The better alternative is to enforce the law more strictly.

If you think about it emotionally, your policy of redistribution essentially subdues potential thieves. This is practically appeasement: "we will pay you so that you don't have an incentive to steal" - that is like sacrificing liberties at home to defend our liberties in a War on Terror (*ahem* Patriot Act). A stronger enforcement of the law should be used instead. Both options will cost money, so empirical evidence may be required. However, the option that respects individual liberty the most is to enforce the law more strongly (or effectively).

If you believe that the majority are compassionate, that is great. Let it be voluntary. We can persuade and appeal to the conscience of those who do not donate, but we should not coerce them.

[Pencil]

I see this as an attack on individual liberties. If the electorate wanted a national religion, the government should not allowed to install one. The constitution is supposed to shield us from the tyranny of the majority.

Haha I wouldn't say our constitution protects us from tyranny of the majority, though I would agree that it should. It protects certain things, like freedom of religion, but not much else. Most of our rights are upheld through statutes and the common law, which can be changed at any time by parliament and are therefore at the whim really of this 'majority'.
baha a little off topic sorrry  /ignore

[brendan]

But you essentially benefit from this so called confiscation.

If people really benefited then give then make it voluntary, and we will see what they decide.

If you were given the choice, would you pay taxes? I would, I imagine most people would.

Good. Then give them that choice.

But as soon as the government starts to fund non-excludables, it means that everybody has to pay or else they'd benefit from somebody elses stuff.

That's the free-rider problem with non-excludable goods. That may justify government intervention. Not all non-excludable goods are worth the costs inherent in government intervention (government failure, dead weight costs of taxation estimated to be 20 cents in the dollar, corruption, imperfect information). Some non-excludable goods are worth it e.g. national defense.

And technically we do have some choice.

No, if they had a choice, then you wouldn't need to coerce them.

As in, if the electrorate didn't want to pay taxes, they'd vote in a government that wouldn't make them pay.

But by using the political process the majority must by necessity impose conformity upon all including the minority. How is that more desirable that giving each individual the freedom of choice to decide for himself? 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.

Also, if the electorate doesn't like what the government is buying, they'll be voted out too.

Again, there is bundling. What if both parties propose buying things that the people do not like? 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.

I see it as a way in which we can all pool our money together for something we'll all own/use/need. It's practical.

There is nothing wrong with that, that's completely fine and i would support that, but it ought to be voluntary and without coercion.

[brendan]

This talk that a minimum wage law is a "safety net" simply makes no sense. It is not a safety net at all. The minimum wage only applies if you are EMPLOYED. What good is a minimum wage if you are put out of a job and earning nothing, because employers are no longer willing to hire you are the minimum wage?  The minimum wage laws are labeled as being for the poor, for the needy, yet have effects exactly the opposite of those which their well-intentioned sponsors intended them to have. The sponsors believe that a law saying that nobody shall get less than say $10 an hour, you are helping poor people who need the money. You are doing nothing of the kind. What you are doing is to assure that people whose skills are not sufficient to justify $10/hr will be unemployed. The hard evidence shows that a minimum wage law reduces the number of jobs available. The greater the minimum wage the greater the negative employment effects. Moreover, these disemployment effects have been concentrated on the least-skilled and most disadvantaged groups that the sponsors would most like to help. Everyone wants to see economic well-being of the working poor rise, but why on earth would you want to throw the poor, the unskilled, and the young out of work?

To understand why the evidence shows the a minimum wage has negative employment effects take this example: The minimum wage is $10/hr. Let's say there is a man who has a skill set which would justify a wage rate of $6, $7 an hour. The minimum wage law says to employers that they must discriminate against people who have low skills. The law says you can't, you may not employ him. Because if you employ him, you have to pay him $10. Well, what's the result? Why engage in activities where the costs ($10) exceed the benefits ($7)? The firm will simply not employ him. This man is now unemployed because it is illegal for him to work for $7/hr. This raises question of freedom. What right does a the government to dictate to us what price we can sell our labour? If he wishes to sell his labour at $7/hr - why are we in any position to force him not to? The minimum wage law is just another example of government arrogantly controlling our actions and destroying personal choice.

[excal]

What is the point of a minimum wage while we still have youth rates.

Any argument about 'providing employment opportunties' (in the unskilled market, particularly) is moot.

[Eriny]

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. I will dispute the inference drawn from that information though. 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.

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.

And also, while the research is apparently there, we have no reason to think that no minimum wage is best. Few societies have no minimum wage at all, the majority of those who do have things such as child slavery and sweatshops and so on - this violates basic human rights which is ethically reprehensible. How do you know for sure how not having a minimum wage will affect our entire society? I'm not convinced that it would be for the best. Theoretically, your agument is viable, but there's no real world examples to back it up. I just keep thinking back to Britain during the Industrial Revolution. What's to say that society won't go back there?

And technically we do have some choice.

No, if they had a choice, then you wouldn't need to coerce them.

As in, if the electrorate didn't want to pay taxes, they'd vote in a government that wouldn't make them pay.

But by using the political process the majority must by necessity impose conformity upon all including the minority. How is that more desirable that giving each individual the freedom of choice to decide for himself? 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.

Also, if the electorate doesn't like what the government is buying, they'll be voted out too.

Again, there is bundling. What if both parties propose buying things that the people do not like? 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.

I see it as a way in which we can all pool our money together for something we'll all own/use/need. It's practical.

There is nothing wrong with that, that's completely fine and i would support that, but it ought to be voluntary and without coercion.

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.

If you believe that the majority are compassionate, that is great. Let it be voluntary. We can persuade and appeal to the conscience of those who do not donate, but we should not coerce them.

I'm not going to dispute that donations could be effective. They could be. However, what I know of psychology would suggest otherwise. If there is somebody dying of poverty and many people are in a position to help them, most will have the tendency to leave it up to somebody else to do. The attitude is "Why should I help them, when there are other people who are richer than I am around to help out?". I believe that a better solution is to all help out equally, and in turn we all benefit.

If you think about it emotionally, your policy of redistribution essentially subdues potential thieves. This is practically appeasement: "we will pay you so that you don't have an incentive to steal" - that is like sacrificing liberties at home to defend our liberties in a War on Terror (*ahem* Patriot Act). A stronger enforcement of the law should be used instead. Both options will cost money, so empirical evidence may be required. However, the option that respects individual liberty the most is to enforce the law more strongly (or effectively).

I think it's more "We pay you so that you can buy food, be healthy, think more clearly, get educated, and lead a life where you won't feel the need to resort to desperate acts". We'll ultimately have to pay for it anyway, the police force is a public good, jails might be considered to be a public good. Personally, I'd prefer to pay them before they get to prison. Also, the money would probably be used for education, which has many positive externalities to the whole economy/society. It helps all of us.