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.
You're refutations are not too compelling, I'll try to address as much of them as I can.
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?
perish the thought!
that depends entirely on the employee and the nature of the position.
Why would you say the supply of the workers is decreased and also say prices are raised to cover the increased cost of labor? Its either one or the other, either they will be laid off or the business will raise prices. Both reactions will not be in effect doubly.
Employees won't have a choice, they will have to work for whatever they are dictated to work for even if its very low.
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.
That's not the same situation. Employers could easily get out of it by hiring other people. With a minimum wage floor you can't get out of it, everyone must be paid the minimum.
actually I think that you are failing to realize how "powerful monopolies" typically fall.
no, it prevents those suppliers from supplying competitors.
dumping supply is one of the more laughable claims. oh - don't get me wrong here - it's been tried. it just also fails.
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.
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.
You are completely wrong about monopolies. Free markets
do not maximize profit for the largest number of people, they maximize profit for only a certain segment of people and businesses.
Are you familiar with the Carnegie steel monopoly? That is a classic case of how monopolies work.
I'll give you a similar example. Lets say there's a big car manufacturer A that needs aluminum to make cars. He signs an exclusive contract with aluminum maker B. A sells cars at slightly under cost. Everyone buys the cheapest car. Small companies cannot compete and are put out of business. A then signs exclusive contracts with all the aluminum makers. Now A raises the price, no one can enter the market because all the other aluminum makers are out of business and A has an exclusive contract with all the aluminum makers. Lets say someone did enter the market. A lowers the price of his car again briefly, then raises the price once the other guy is out of business.
Don't forget, there are entry costs which form a barrier for entering the market. In markets with significant entry costs, a monopoly can significantly maintain their dominance.
Anyways, ideally, markets tend towards aggregation because a larger business is inherently more powerful than a smaller business.
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 tend to destroy monopolies. The free market is powerful and does produce competition, but it is not the answer to everything. Entry costs are huge barrier for people to enter into the market and is something that larger businesses can exploit. Nowadays we have anti-trust regulation, like no dumping, no price fixing, etc. which maintains a healthy free market that
allows competition to be healthy and not dirty.
Also, you haven't addressed price fixing and collusion in an industry. What's to stop the entire industry from colluding? Only regulation does that, not the free market.
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.
That's wrong as I explained before. Prices climb only
slightly, while the worker's wages have increase dramatically.
that is precisely correct. everyone always forgets that the real "minimum wage" is zero. when you institute a price floor, you simply push everyone below it down to nothing.
Let me get your take on environmental regulation, because that starts at zero too. But I'm sure that we all can agree that we are better off without cadmium and mercury floating around in our rivers, like what might happen in China, and possible poisonous chemicals in baby food.
