No, without a minimum wage you would be guarantee an underclass of workers
we already have an underclass. a minimum wage ensures that they
remain so. that, after all, was the reason we adopted the minimum wage in the
first place.
Supply would dictate a ridiculously low wage
then you
admit that minimum wage laws increase unemployment (ie: reduce the supply of available workers).
given that the first portion of "supply" to be reduced is the most vulnerable among us, how do you justify such a thing?
the workers would have to work because they have no alternative
perish the thought!
and a group would be overpowered by the rich, because those who have would be at the mercy of those who have for a job. This is not a symmetrical situation here that's what you're neglecting. Those who don't have don't have the ability to hold out for more while those who have can always pass an employee opportunity and wait them out.
that depends entirely on the employee and the nature of the position.
in reality, however, these people's labor is already worth a set amount to an employer. when you deny the employer the ability to pay them what they are worth, he is simply not going to pay them at all. The Americans with Disabilities Act would be a prime example - passed in 1992, the ostensible goal was to help the physically or mentally impaired... but because the ADA raised the cost of businesses for hiring such individuals, employment of people with disabilities
declined, as employers were unable and unwilling to spend more than an employee was worth.
You are failing to realize how powerful monopolies work.
actually I think that you are failing to realize how "powerful monopolies" typically fall.
The can sign exclusive contracts with suppliers which prevents any other business from entering the market.
no, it prevents those suppliers from supplying competitors.
Those suppliers that don't cooperate can be dumped against and put out of business
dumping supply is one of the more laughable claims. oh - don't get me wrong here - it's been
tried. it just also
fails.
Free markets tend to aggregate into monopolies, because ideally, anything a small business can do, a larger business can do more efficiently ideally.
that is incorrect both historically and economically. free markets tend to
destroy monopolies, historically, monopolies that survive require government intervention. and this is precisely because large businesses are always susceptible to innovators, such as small businesses.
Free markets do not result in the best possible outcome, what they do is maximize profit for a certain business.
wrong. free markets being made up of mutually beneficial trade, what they do is maximize profit for the largest possible number of people, while ensuring that that number of people also steadily goes up.
Ok you are completely wrong here because high prices in cities are a result of property demand/demand to be in the city, not labor costs. Ok, I understand you're example, you left one choice out: D) deal with less profit
profit is not guaranteed, and businesses live on the margins. the vast majority of small businesses
already can't maintain that margin, and shut down. when you thin the
potential margin by placing on it a drag of higher labor costs, therefore, you increase the percentage of business failures. Businesses are not there to serve as charities, they are there to engage in mutually beneficial trade - trying to change that model to one where business owners pay employees more than they are worth will only break them.
Most likely businesses will raise prices to recover the cost of labor and what this amounts to is a tax on everybody so that the poorest laborers can make a living wage.
except that since the prices of everything have just gone up, that "living" wage isn't as "livable". the working poor are no better off than they were before, and the formerly working poor are now much
worse off. They suddenly find themselves with no income, but with the price of necessary goods climbing higher than before.