[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Milton Freidman says:
The fact is, the programs labeled as being ?for the poor,? or ?for the needy,? almost always have effects exactly the opposite of those which their well-intentioned sponsors intend them to have.
Let me give you a very simple example ? take the minimum wage law. Its well-meaning sponsors? there are always in these cases two groups of sponsors ? there are the well-meaning sponsors and there are the special interests, who are using the well-meaning sponsors as front men. You almost always when you have bad programs have an unholy coalition of the do-gooders on the one hand, and the special interest on the other. The minimum wage law is as clear a case as you could want. The special interests are of course the trade unions ? the monopolistic trade craft unions. The do-gooders believe that by passing a law saying that nobody shall get less than $9 per hour (adjusted for today) or whatever the minimum wage is, 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 that kind of a wage will be unemployed.
The minimum wage law is most properly described as a law saying that employers must discriminate against people who have low skills. That?s what the law says. The law says that here?s a man who has a skill that would justify a wage of $5 or $6 per hour (adjusted for today), but you may not employ him, it?s illegal, because if you employ him you must pay him $9 per hour. So what?s the result? To employ him at $9 per hour is to engage in charity. There?s nothing wrong with charity. But most employers are not in the position to engage in that kind of charity. Thus, the consequences of minimum wage laws have been almost wholly bad. We have increased unemployment and increased poverty.
Moreover, the effects have been concentrated on the groups that the do-gooders would most like to help. The people who have been hurt most by the minimum wage laws are the blacks. I have often said that the most anti-black law on the books of this land is the minimum wage law.
There is absolutely no positive objective achieved by the minimum wage law. Its real purpose is to reduce competition for the trade unions and make it easier for them to maintain the higher wages of their privileged members.
Thomas Sowell says:
Governor Mitt Romney’s statement about not worrying about the poor has been treated as a gaffe in much of the media, and those in the Republican establishment who have been rushing toward endorsing his coronation as the GOP’s nominee for president ? with 90 percent of the delegates still not yet chosen ? have been trying to sweep his statement under the rug.But Romney’s statement about not worrying about the poor ? because they ?have a very ample safety net? ? was followed by a statement that was not just a slip of the tongue, and should be a defining moment in telling us about this man’s qualifications as a conservative and, more important, as a potential President of the United States.Mitt Romney has come out in support of indexing the minimum wage law, to have it rise automatically to keep pace with inflation. To many people, that would seem like a small thing that can be left for economists or statisticians to deal with.But to people who call themselves conservatives, and aspire to public office, there is no excuse for not being aware of what a major social disaster the minimum wage law has been for the young, the poor and especially for young and poor blacks.It is not written in the stars that young black males must have astronomical rates of unemployment. It is written implicitly in the minimum wage laws.We have gotten so used to seeing unemployment rates of 30 or 40 percent for black teenage males that it might come as a shock to many people to learn that the unemployment rate for sixteen- and seventeen-year-old black males was just under 10 percent back in 1948. Moreover, it was slightly lower than the unemployment rate for white males of the same age.How could this be?The economic reason is quite plain. The inflation of the 1940s had pushed money wages for even unskilled, entry-level labor above the level specified in the minimum wage law passed ten years earlier. In other words, there was in practical effect no national minimum wage law in the late 1940s.Liberals were of course appalled that the federal minimum wage law had lagged so far behind inflation – and, in 1950, they began a series of escalations of the minimum wage level over the years.It was in the wake of these escalations that black teenage unemployment rose to levels that were three or four times the level in 1948. Even in the most prosperous years of later times, the unemployment rate for black teenage males was some multiple of what it was even in the recession year of 1949. And now it was often double the unemployment rate for white males of the same ages.This was not the first or the last time that liberals did something that made them feel good about themselves, while leaving havoc in their wake, especially among the poor whom they were supposedly helping.Nor are such consequences of minimum wage laws peculiar to blacks or to the United States. In Western European countries whose social policies liberals consider more ?advanced? than our own, including more generous minimum wage laws and other employer-mandated benefits, it has been common in even prosperous years for unemployment rates among young people to be 20 percent or higher.The economic reason is not complicated. When you set minimum wage levels higher than many inexperienced young people are worth, they don’t get hired. It is not rocket science.Milton Friedman explained all this, half a century ago, in his popular little book for non-economists, ?Capitalism and Freedom.? So have many other people. If a presidential candidate who calls himself ?conservative? has still not heard of these facts, that simply shows that you can call yourself anything you want to[/quote]
Economist Robert Wolff has stated that while some may loose out in an increase in minimum wage others benefit. There is an increase in demand via the increase in wages and that creates hiring to keep up with the new demand. Those people’s lives are made better and there are new jobs to fill the increase in demand. Essentially the loss of jobs is made up for by the new ones created. Where was unemployment in 1968 when minimum wage had it’s highest purchasing power?