kylestephens123
New member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2012
- Messages
- 14
- Reaction score
- 5
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
The idea of a minimum wage is-despite being good intentioned- deeply flawed. Wage control, in the long run, actually has the opposite effect of its original intention, and that is, to raise the standard of living for the average worker. Although this may seem ludicrous, let me explain.
Before a minimum wage, employers are able to hire and pay as they see fit. A typical restaurant can employ as many bus boys, cooks, waiters and waitresses, hosts, or whatever else they would like, as needed. Employees with higher sets of skills are paid more handsomely, albeit nominal for their position, and other employees, with less important jobs, are paid less. Those workers who are paid less typically are people with less skill, less education, or less experience. Now, with a minimum wage, the employer must cut back and consolidate in order to still run their business at an operable level; the lower-skilled persons are fired, and only the workers with higher skill levels are kept, but now those workers must take on the responsibilities that are now given them from having those who had them before being fired.
Since the firm has free reign over who they hire and who they fire, it can be inferred that the firm will only keep the high-skilled workers. Those with less education, less skill, and/or less experience are now without a job, or money. On top of this, the workers that do remain in hire now must take on more work, thus lowering the actual working conditions of the job. Those who were fired (or never even hired) will not have the means to get better education, obtain skills in the workplace, or in general, add to any experience they might have. Ironically, the people who benefit from wage control (if anyone at all) are the workers who would have been paid that wage anyways.
This is just a micro-level analysis, though. On a macro-level, wage control gives the incentive for firms to off-shore their production to countries with lower wage demands than countries with high wage demands.
Thoughts? Errors in my analysis? Agree or Disagree?
Before a minimum wage, employers are able to hire and pay as they see fit. A typical restaurant can employ as many bus boys, cooks, waiters and waitresses, hosts, or whatever else they would like, as needed. Employees with higher sets of skills are paid more handsomely, albeit nominal for their position, and other employees, with less important jobs, are paid less. Those workers who are paid less typically are people with less skill, less education, or less experience. Now, with a minimum wage, the employer must cut back and consolidate in order to still run their business at an operable level; the lower-skilled persons are fired, and only the workers with higher skill levels are kept, but now those workers must take on the responsibilities that are now given them from having those who had them before being fired.
Since the firm has free reign over who they hire and who they fire, it can be inferred that the firm will only keep the high-skilled workers. Those with less education, less skill, and/or less experience are now without a job, or money. On top of this, the workers that do remain in hire now must take on more work, thus lowering the actual working conditions of the job. Those who were fired (or never even hired) will not have the means to get better education, obtain skills in the workplace, or in general, add to any experience they might have. Ironically, the people who benefit from wage control (if anyone at all) are the workers who would have been paid that wage anyways.
This is just a micro-level analysis, though. On a macro-level, wage control gives the incentive for firms to off-shore their production to countries with lower wage demands than countries with high wage demands.
Thoughts? Errors in my analysis? Agree or Disagree?
Last edited: