If people were willing to pay a fair wage for a good job then we wouldn't have had to create laws telling people to pay a fair wage. We needed government to step in and protect people. Ironically, their rights were made clear by government intervention. If the free-market is so good, why was there such exploitation before, particularly of children? There shouldn't have been the need for laws, right?
What in the hell is a 'fair wage'?
Why does any business EVER pay more than the minimum wage? "Low" wages exist because resources are scarce, do you think you can just pass a law to create the food and shelter everone needs? Seriously, stop for a second and think about it.
What is the right wage for helping me out by giving me a ride to the store as a friend? Is there a right wage/payment for that? Sure you can say "friends should just help each other out there shoud be no payment" but maybe you can't afford to take me to the store, so what is the right amount for me to pay you? I'm guessing you'd say "well that depends on the circumstances", and the fact is there are thousands of different circumstances that could effect just this one little ride to the store, there's no possible way government could know the right amount. So we come to an agreement that works for both of us. We each know the our own circumstances. If the government sets the "Ride to the store" wage, it will set it too low, so you decide you can't afford to help me out, or it will set it too high, so I decide to walk to the store instead. We are forced to not come to an agreement that would help us both, we both suffer.
The only difference between the scenario above and a wage for an actual job is that there is less of an ability for either party to be negatively exploited, there is no strong bond of friendship where one party can take advantage of the others feeling of a duty to help a friend. There is only the seeking of a mutual agreement that helps both parties. A job is nothing but 2 people coming to an agreement to HELP each other. If the government passes a law mandating a certain wage or working condition, the only outcome that can lead to is FEWER people helping each other, less people employed, less production, less food, less shelter, and more people in poverty.
Lets say the government doubles the wage to all farm workers, now a lot of people want to work on farms, but the farms can afford to hire fewer people, so there is less food. In response the government decides to try the opposite and cuts farm wages in half, now the farms want to hire many more people, but no-one wants the farm jobs, again less food is produced than if they were left free. The fact is mandating a "fair wage" does nothing but hurt people, whats important is allowing incentives to lead people to produce more. Leaving people free to come to agreements that suit them will lead to more production, and less scarcity, which means less poverty.
If you are unconvinced, please reply here and state what you disagree with, and why you think it's is wrong.
Why do you keep starting these ridiculous threads? Do you know how to use the reply buttons? Do you really think any of your arguments are valid? Have you ever composed a thought before typing words on the screen? Are you aware of the search function? Can you use google? Do you even read these responses?
"Why do you keep starting these ridiculous threads?"
Please don't knock him for asking this question. It is a good question. One that many many people have. Just show him the truth as the previous replies are doing.
It's Eugene's little brother, don't be too harsh on him.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
This article called "The Trouble With Child Labor Laws" by Jeffrey Tucker covers some of your questions:
https://mises.org/daily/2858
Where is the justification for wage in the first place? Labor, as a part of the self, is inalienable.
My browser ate my long post. I hate this.
Papirius:Where is the justification for wage in the first place? Labor, as a part of the self, is inalienable.
First off, what do you mean by "inalienable" in this context? Second, and once again, do you mean that no one is physically able to "alienate" his labor, or do you mean that it's only illegitimate for him to do so? And if the former, then can you prove it?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
It is centanly possible to alienate (/transfer title of) one's labor to someone else in feudalism and capitalism, but it is illegitimate because selfownership is inalienable.
Papirius:It is centanly possible to alienate (/transfer title of) one's labor to someone else in feudalism and capitalism, but it is illegitimate because selfownership is inalienable.
You seem to be mixing descriptivity and normativity together. Let's see if I can separate them.
You seem to be really saying that feudalism and capitalism consider it legitimate to alienate one's labor to someone else, but you think it's illegitimate. Does that sound right? If so, do you see how that only involves normativity?
Let's unpack this question.
If people were willing to pay a fair wage for a good job then we wouldn't have had to create laws telling people to pay a fair wage
Since when has the government enacted laws with the best of intentions? Do you think we went to war in the Middle East to spread democracy and freedom? Do you think Jim Crow laws were enacted with the best intentions?
These questions are strengthened by the historical fact the the progressives at the turn of the century who are so lauded for being the founders of the workers' rights movement were themselves racist and eugenicist. They wanted to use the government as a tool of social control to marginalize groups they didn't like. This article gives a good overview:
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/eugenics-progressivism%E2%80%99s-ultimate-social-engineering/
Further examples are the David-Bacon Act during the Great Depression and minimum wage during apartheid:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=13974
Then, perhaps, you will have the question of "well how come the government had to step in to stop businesses from discriminating against blacks in the 1960s?"
This, once again, overlooks the history of the matter and the underlying government interference that caused the problem. First of all, companies even as far back as in the 19th century had decided that segregation was expensive and that integration of the races was more economical. The problem? The state mandated separate arrangements and the courts prevented companies like railroads from integrating:
http://archive.mises.org/13502/jim-crow-government-against-market-forces/
Furthermore, while the institution of slavery is (rightly) given extensive discussion in school to show how inhumane it was, Jim Crow laws are generally merely mentioned and not studied at all, when in fact Jim Crow laws allowed slavery to essentially continue to exist within the United States. I think that even libertarians sometimes underestimate the horror that are Jim Crow laws, something I am just beginning to research. They restricted movement, employment, and general aspects of liberty we so take for granted today. They essentially made blacks the property of their owners, who could not enjoy their freedom outside of their employment. Discrimination was mandated by law. For a very long time!
If the free-market is so good, why was there such exploitation before, particularly of children? There shouldn't have been the need for laws, right?
Because people were poor? I don't think you understand the history of the world before the Industrial Revolution. People were POOR. Hence, they needed to have their entire family to work. Otherwise, they would STARVE. Subsistence farming isn't fun! I'm doing my best to channel Tom Woods on this one, but here is the man himself:
[view:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7Qf0ey-pOo]
Furthermore, an economic analysis of child labor laws show that they were in fact not instrumental to the removal of child labor:
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/whaples.childlabor
So what was instrumental? An increase in the productivity of the public. This meant that parents could now afford to not have their children work and could instead either have them stay at home or go to school for a longer amount of time.
Here is more on child labor:
http://candlemind.com/projects/progclub/file/michael/child.php
Actually Rothbard did that. I don't think that selfownership is inalienable because one cannot physacally alienate one's control of the body, but because it contradictory to the priciple of selfownership (which is an ethical axiom not derived from facts of nature, but argumentation ethics).
You think that the self in alienable?
Papirius:Actually Rothbard did that.
He most certainly did. I'm not a Rothbardian because of it.
Papirius:I don't think that selfownership is inalienable because one cannot physacally alienate one's control of the body, but because it contradictory to the priciple of selfownership (which is an ethical axiom not derived from facts of nature, but argumentation ethics).
Right, so you simply think it's illegitimate for a person to abandon what you see as his inherent self-ownership, which is entirely normative in nature.
How do you see alienating self-ownership as contradictory to the principle of self-ownership?
Papirius:You think that the self in alienable?
Clearly I do. A person alienates himself (i.e. gives up all rights he purports to have over himself) if he commits suicide, for example. Whether one considers it legitimate for a person to alienate himself is another story (see the is-ought problem). Here I'm speaking descriptively, not normatively.
Now normatively speaking, I do consider it legitimate for a person to alienate his self-ownership.