Excellent Anti-Minimum Wage Law Article In Chronicle

Discussion
1

Dear Everyone;

An excellent riposte to those who want to boost minimum wages to help the working poor.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/01/EDGM45ABQM1.DTL

P.S. If you get todays Chronicle or Examiner the cartoonist Wiley Miller in Non Sequitur had a humerous take on the SF gay marriages.

2

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

An excellent riposte to those who want to boost minimum wages to help the
working poor.

Thanks, Ron.

P.S. If you get todays Chronicle or Examiner the cartoonist Wiley Miller
in Non Sequitur had a humerous take on the SF gay marriages.

You can read _Non Sequitur_ on-line at <URL:
http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequitur/ >.

~Chris
- --
"Reality is a pie of which I do not require another slice."
    ~ Shelley Winters, "Scary Go Round" by John Allison
Freelance text nerd: <URL: http://crism.maden.org/ >
PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA

3

Ron,

  I suggest referring to "those who want to impose wage restriction laws" rather than "those who want to boost minimum wages." Identifying destructive economic policies primarily with wage increases makes them sound helpful and positive when the truth is the opposite.

Yours in liberty,
          <<< Starchild >>>

4

Dear Starchild;

After thinking about it the real title should really be " job restriction laws ". There is no doubt it restricts the market place of jobs for the working poor and limits their choices in getting a job. The very people the supposed " minimum wage " laws were meant to help. As Professor Galles so ably pointed out in his Open Forum article.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
Ron,

      I suggest referring to "those who want to impose wage restriction
laws" rather than "those who want to boost minimum wages." Identifying
destructive economic policies primarily with wage increases makes them
sound helpful and positive when the truth is the opposite.

Yours in liberty,
                              <<< Starchild >>>

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
Click Here

5

Ron,

  I agree that loss of jobs is the consequence of these laws. But what do the laws actually say? They don't say that employers cannot offer 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, of course.

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 place of jobs for the working poor and limits their choices in getting a job. The very people the supposed " minimum wage " laws were meant to help. As Professor Galles so ably pointed out in his Open Forum article.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:

Ron,

  I suggest referring to &quot;those who want to impose wage restriction

laws" rather than "those who want to boost minimum wages." Identifying
destructive economic policies primarily with wage increases makes them
sound helpful and positive when the truth is the opposite.

Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>

<image.tiff>

6

Dear Starchild;

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
irrelevant.

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
market rates.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@e...>
wrote:

Ron,

  I agree that loss of jobs is the consequence of these laws.

But what

do the laws actually say? They don't say that employers cannot

offer

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,

of

course.

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

place of

> jobs for the working poor and limits their choices in getting a

job.

> The very people the supposed " minimum wage " laws were meant to

help.

> As Professor Galles so ably pointed out in his Open Forum

article.

>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
> Starchild <sfdreamer@e...> wrote:
>
> Ron,
>
> I suggest referring to "those who want to impose wage

restriction

> laws" rather than "those who want to boost minimum wages."

Identifying

> destructive economic policies primarily with wage increases

makes them

> sound helpful and positive when the truth is the opposite.
>
> Yours in liberty,
> <<< Starchild >>>
>
>
>
<image.tiff>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> • To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-discuss/
>
> • To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> • Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

Service.