[Red Star]

Red Star Note: Moved to "Liberalism" - I think it can come under the "Civil rights & liberties, State responsibility to the people (welfare)" description of this sub-forum. I didn't feel it was warranted in "Socialism" as most socialists/Marxists there showed - a defence of minimum wage is more likely to be mounted in this part of the forum.

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

The traditional minimum-wages-increase-unemployment argument assumes perfect or near-perfect competition in the labor market. However there are plenty of examples where a few dominant employers in a locality have monopsony power. They can restrict both wages and employment levels this way. Collective bargaining helps to redress the balance of power and can move wages closer to an efficient outcome.

Of course, if the unions form in an already-competitive labor market then there will instead be monopoly power on the workers' side - higher wages but fewer jobs.

[Ademir]

Isn't the pinko solution to this to just give everyone a nice welfare cheque every fortnight if they happen to be one of those who is unemployed as a result of minimum wage laws?

[Vera Politica]

Isn't the pinko solution to this to just give everyone a nice welfare cheque every fortnight if they happen to be one of those who is unemployed as a result of minimum wage laws?

Depends what you mean by 'pinko'. If you mean socialists or communists, then no. If you mean social liberals, then yes.

[Ademir]

Depends what you mean by 'pinko'. If you mean socialists or communists, then no. If you mean social liberals, then yes.

Yeah, the second one. I'm stilling waiting for my $900 stimulus money here in Australia, I need a new graphics card. I wonder if social liberals would still give welfare to people they knew were planning to violently overthrow them, seeing as the placating impact of it would be lost on them.

[guzzipat]

In the UK the minimum wage legislation is a minor and very recent law.

There is Health & Safety legislation, which was needed because empoyers kept injuring or killing their workforce.

There are laws about Union busting activities, which are routinely ignored. There are laws about contracts of employment, which in the absence of a Union employers ignore.

The laws that have the most effect are those designed to restrict and control industrial action. You need a lawyer to take industrial action in the UK now.

[canadiancapitalist]

The traditional minimum-wages-increase-unemployment argument assumes perfect or near-perfect competition in the labor market.

Can you define perfect, near perfect, and imperfect competition? It seems to me that these terms are macro goobly gook, designed simply to confuse, and not descriptive of real conditions. Perhaps you are thinking of elasticity? Or perhaps I am simply ignorant of your argument. Please elucidate, if you are able!

This argument rests upon a single assumption - that price floors create surpluses.

There is Health & Safety legislation, which was needed because empoyers kept injuring or killing their workforce.

Were they hitting them over the head with shovels? I apologize for my facetious point but I believe it cuts right to the issue. Surely the worker is to blame as well if he gets injured. At any rate, these jobs may seem too dangerous for you, but people choose to do them, no doubt for a dearth of opportunity in other areas. You should work to expand opportunity, not to prohibit choices you deem irresponsible.

[guzzipat]

At any rate, these jobs may seem too dangerous for you, but people choose to do them, no doubt for a dearth of opportunity in other areas. You should work to expand opportunity, not to prohibit choices you deem irresponsible.

You say people "choose to do them" then agree probably through lack of other work. You undermine your own agrument.

What exactly is so unreasonable in expecting empoyers to provide a reasonable degree of safety? Especially when it can be clearly demonstated that in most developed economies, good health & safety policies are good business. Any company that needlessly puts workers at risk is operating bad business practices and are not worth investment.
I worked for a very large untility, it was excellent for action on health and safety, consistantly in the top few in the country. They were absolutely clear why, bad health and safety was expensive in terms of sick pay, claims and bad inspection reports. It would also damage the company in the eyes of their customers. They operated a good health & safety regime out of self interest not for any moral imperative. They remain one of the biggest and most profitable utilities in Europe.

[canadiancapitalist]

You say people "choose to do them" then agree probably through lack of other work. You undermine your own agrument[sic].

Not at all sir, I am simply explaining their motives. There is nothing contradictory w/ the positions I have taken.

What exactly is so unreasonable in expecting empoyers to provide a reasonable degree of safety?

There is nothing unreasonable about this at all, especially in a developed economy that can afford it. Which is really the point - these regulations are either useless and unnecessary or harmful.

Especially when it can be clearly demonstated that in most developed economies, good health & safety policies are good business. Any company that needlessly puts workers at risk is operating bad business practices and are not worth investment.

Everything in life is a risk. The real question is who should be doing the risk / benefit analysis. I say it's the person with the most to risk. You think it's you.

I worked for a very large untility[sic], it was excellent for action on health and safety, consistantly [sic] in the top few in the country.

Good for you?

They were absolutely clear why, bad health and safety was expensive in terms of sick pay, claims and bad inspection reports. It would also damage the company in the eyes of their customers. They operated a good health & safety regime out of self interest not for any moral imperative. They remain one of the biggest and most profitable utilities in Europe.

Good for them. But we're not talking about companies that choose smart business practices, we are talking about the government forbidding things.