The minimum wage has little to no relation to the unemployment PROOF:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w4509 "On April 1, 1992 New Jersey's minimum wage increased from $4.25 to $5.05 per hour. To evaluate the impact of the law we surveyed 410 fast food restaurants in New Jersey and Pennsylvania before and after the rise in the minimum. Comparisons of the changes in wages, employment, and prices at stores in New Jersey relative to stores in Pennsylvania (where the minimum wage remained fixed at $4.25 per hour) yield simple estimates of the effect of the higher minimum wage. Our empirical findings challenge the prediction that a rise in the minimum reduces employment. Relative to stores in Pennsylvania, fast food restaurants in New Jersey increased employment by 13 percent. We also compare employment growth at stores in New Jersey that were initially paying high wages (and were unaffected by the new law) to employment changes at lower-wage stores. Stores that were unaffected by the minimum wage had the same employment growth as stores in Pennsylvania, while stores that had to increase their wages increased their employment."
American businesses have proven that they don't give a rat's ass about figures. They simply want to control lives. It's a new breed since the "greatest generation". It's people who have been brought up on "emotions" during the seventies and eighties, and now, the nineties and naughts have produced a generation that is totally based on lies and cheating, due to the internet.
Employers today only pretend to care about these "profit margins" and "trickle down" economics. They are obsessed with their control, with owning all access to control, and making sure none of us upstarts ever get a foot in the door. They are relentless and vindictive. I've been around long enough to know. Those from today's generation have no choice but to comply, or be out with the rest of us. Secondly, "in the field", the raise to 9 an hour doesn't truly mean he only makes the employer a one dollar profit margin, because you can't seperate team effort. If you remove a shortstop, a second baseman isn't going to cover the ground, and runners get on base. If you remove a second baseman, the same happens. It's all simply bull crap that any one cog is more important than another. The one making 13 an hour is making more than the 11 that is "assigned" to the unskilled worker. These "assigned" values are simply excuses with no basis in truth, meant so that some people can be affluent, and others not, meant so that some useless boss who just wears a tie and walks around to be worshipped can make a million dollars. Face the facts. You can fool the young and naive, but you can't fool the educated who have had experience.
There's plenty of good empirical evidence that prove minimum wage laws d ogreater good than bad - Like limited work weeks, workplace safety regulations, child labor laws, environmental protections, guaranteed union rights and so on, minimum wage statutes limit the ability of corporate entities to abuse and oppress their employees, communities and environments.
If you want to see what the workplace can be like absent such guarantees, regulations and protections, just look at places like burma today and china a decade or two ago. factories as virtual prisons. corporations employing thuggish militias. massive ecological damage. workers making just enough to live 10 to a room in abject poverty.
Basically the corporations just exploit them and there should be regulation in place to keep the conditions and pay fair.
How do the corporations exploit people.
Can you be more descriptive? Im not understanding.
If youre hinting at the capitalist paying the worker wages less than what the worker created then, we are just arguing labor theory of value.
Value of an item is not determined by the amount of labor it takes.
Value is subjective. No matter how many hours you took to make a product, I may value it differently than another person. Its the basic comparison to a bottle of water or a 1 oz crystal diamond.
Lets say it takes 5 hours of labor to make 1 bottle of water, and 200 hours of labor to make 1 oz diamond. If you believe in labor theory of value, both items should be valued equally both in africa and america.
However in reality, here in america, if we were faced with a choice, wed choose the 1 oz diamond, since a bottle of water is so abundant that we would in a heartbeat choose a 1 oz crystal diamond, and as such i value the diamond more than the water even though both items took the same amount of labor to make.
However, in africa, a child that is thirsty will choose the bottle of water. Ddrinkable water is not very abundant in africa and as such, the african child will value the water above the diamond, even though it takes more labor to extract a diamond, than to purify water.
Hence, value comes not from the amount of labor put in it, but from its marginal utility:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
workers get in return what they agree to. workers have the power to say no
now a sweatshop is not free market if it locks people in and won't let them leave, but people agree to work there if they are free to come and go
economic test wise, there can only be one variable that changes with the rest constant and it does not work that way in real life.
1. You cannot isolate one factor in the real world. You can't, therefore, this study proves nothing.
2. Exploitation? Where it this exploitation? It's all voluntary interaction.
3. What's a "fair wage"? $10.00? If that, then why not $9.99? Why not $9.98, etc. ?
4. When you throw around the word "corporation", I really get the impression that you use it because everyone else uses it. Absolutely, corporations which treat the individuals resposible for theft, fraud, etc. as just part of the company which frees them from justice, but what does that have to do with wages? Why bring up corporations if they cannot be specifically distinguished from any other form of business.
There is no firm argument that the minimum wage is beneficial and there is praxeological evidence to the contrary (it may help some workers, but it hurts those who are unemployed, the producers who have to pay more, and the consuemrs who may have to pay higher prices).
Also, if factories if China and Burma are like prisons, why are people voluntarily going and working in them??
It must, by necessity, be their best available option, or they would seek employment elsewhere. These are people who would almost certainly be thrown out of work if a minimum wage were enacted.