By defining what the job must pay the employer is put in the
position of deciding if the job will be offered at that pay. It is a
restriction on the jobs being offered. What has to be paid is
An employer to get around the minimum wage could cut back the hours.
The hours worked would be equal to the old rate of $6.75/hour. So an
employee could end up working 32 hours a week or 400 hours less a
year. The pay would be equal to what was required. The hours would
be 400 less a year and no gain in income for the employee.
It is thus, therefore and ergo a job restriction law. It restricts
an employer from offering a job at what could have been competitive
--- In email@example.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@e...>
I agree that loss of jobs is the consequence of these laws.
do the laws actually say? They don't say that employers cannot
certain jobs, only that jobs cannot be offered at certain wages.
Therefore they are restrictions on wages, not on jobs, and "wage
restriction laws" is a more accurate description. Just my opinion,
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
> Dear Starchild;
> After thinking about it the real title should really be " job
> restriction laws ". There is no doubt it restricts the market
> jobs for the working poor and limits their choices in getting a
> The very people the supposed " minimum wage " laws were meant to
> As Professor Galles so ably pointed out in his Open Forum
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
> Starchild <sfdreamer@e...> wrote:
> I suggest referring to "those who want to impose wage
> laws" rather than "those who want to boost minimum wages."
> destructive economic policies primarily with wage increases
> sound helpful and positive when the truth is the opposite.
> Yours in liberty,
> <<< Starchild >>>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of