The morality of the "unskilled labor" argument

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Except the goal isn't to make sure everyone has a job, or to maximize profits for companies, the goal is to make sure people have a living wage. Make all the minimum wage arguments you want, but the fact is that at that wage, you STILL don't make enough money to support yourself, let alone a family.

Is it the government's job to ensure that everyone has a living wage? I don't think so. All of this complaining that it's the government's job to make sure that people are happy, treated fairly, and so on are absolutely absurd. It's not even the government's job to ensure that you can raise a family on a single minimum wage income, which is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen you say. The role of government is, and I quote,

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The bastardization of the phrase "promote the general Welfare" has caused many more problems than it has solved (e.g. Exhibits A, B, and C after about three seconds of searching). This bastardization is obviated by the clarification found in Article I: "The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare...." The problem is that we have redefined "welfare" due to its usage in the current welfare system, wherein our government gives money to people for doing nothing. This is a far cry from what was most likely intended by this clause, which I would probably take to mean building roads and so on.

Allowing employers to pay people even less won't solve any problems in the long run. Sure, it may remove part of the market for illegal immigrant labor, but since an even lower wage would be too low to really live on, workers will try to move on to other fields that pay better...if they can. And if they can't, they'll just be a drain on the welfare system.

Please tell me how creating an artifical cost floor improves anything except the chances that an unskilled position will be given to someone who will work for a lower-than-minimum wage. Please explain how raising the cost floor isn't the problem rather than the solution. It causes inflation by artificially increasing wages, thereby becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy: the minimum wage makes the minimum wage an unlivable wage. This is because it will always lag behind the inflation that it causes, since the inflation is nearly instantaneous and the wage is increased incrementally over longer time scales.

luckily, the minimum wage is so far beneath the equilibrium wage its not a problem

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
In a hypothetic environment were the united states was not at or incredibly close to full employment, then you might have a case, however this thread is about reality, and in this reality, people are so desperate for labor at any cost, that they will break the law in order to get it. Luckily for those people, there is an excess supply of illegal labor and they are able to pay low wages.

From what I read in this forum, most people would beg to differ with your assessment of the state of unemployment here. If we abide by your assumption that we need more labor, then you're exactly right and we need more visas and more ways for people to work here legally to fill that void.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
I'm trying to come up with solid arguments for why it is a bad thing to erode native worker's manual labor wages by allowing an influx of illegal immigrants.

The common argument used as to why this is not a problem, is that "it's unskilled labor, who cares."

Why can't an unskilled laborer have the right to freedom from unfair competition? Why does him being unskilled somehow make his right to freedom (right to happiness) less important than the construction firm's right to higher profit? His pathway to happiness is more difficult, because he endures excess financial strain.

Seems to be because we simply value the unskilled laborer less, for being unskilled.

This intrigues me because the argument made by big business is the same one made by all economists, and pretty much everyone with the brain capacity for higher-skilled labor.

How about we play a game of basketball with a little twist, I can double dribble, walk(travel), go out of bounds, etc. but you have to follow the rules, since it's all about winning the game not how you play.