Talking about wage restrictions

In a recent email I noted that it's easier to support "public" schools which aren't run by the government (i.e., schools that are open to the public, just as any restaurant open to the public is a "public restaurant") than it is to advocate for "private" schools.

  Here's another idea for using language more accurately and effectively. Criticizing laws requiring a "minimum wage" is going to sound to some people like criticizing motherhood or apple pie. Instead of talking about "the minimum wage," better to talk about "wage restrictions." Here's an example of how one might approach it.

  Say you're talking with a leftist friend. Ask her, "If they wanted to pass a law tightening the restrictions on what types of wage you're allowed to earn, would you support that?" If she asks for further clarification, you might explain " Well, for example, last month San Francisco passed Proposition L. It cost a lot of poor people their jobs and added new restrictions on people looking for entry level work by making jobs paying less than $8.50 an hour illegal." ("Restrictions" is plural because each job an employer cuts or chooses not to add because of the increased cost of having an employee is an additional restriction on someone seeking to enter the workforce, i.e. "Because of this government law, you no longer have the choice of working there, there, there, or there.")

  If she says, "Do you mean raising the minimum wage?" reply, "Some people use that term, but it's more accurate to say 'wage restrictions,' because the only people whose wages get raised are people who already have work and don't lose their jobs when the wage restrictions get tightened. What this kind of law really does is restrict jobs paying less than a certain wage. That means people on the bottom of the economic ladder lose their jobs unless their employers are willing and able to pay them more, and many people who are already unemployed have a harder time finding work because some job positions are no longer available."

  Let her respond. Then, take a moment to get in touch with whatever strong emotions you feel when you see government programs hurting the same people that politicians like to say they're helping, and other people *just not getting it.* When you're feeling that emotion, ask your friend (either in a tone of solidarity if she agreed with you or an incredulous tone if she didn't), "Doesn't it make you *[name your emotion here -- sad/angry/amazed/etc.]* that they would pass a law cutting jobs for the poor and increasing unemployment just so other people can earn more money?"

Yours in liberty,
              <<< Starchild >>>

Great idea Starchild! I think this (expanded a bit) would make an excellent article for the LPSF and other LP web sites.

-- Steve

Thanks Steve, but I wouldn't know how to expand it without branching into other topics. I've already said what I set out to say about wage restriction laws.

Yours in liberty,
            <<< Starchild >>>

Dear Starchild;

Another way to talk about minimum wage laws is to refer to them as a
job restrictions law. It restricts the jobs which are available
based on the minimum pay requirements.

Under the new $8.75/hour law a mimimum wage full-time job would pay
a base of $17,500 per year. When you add in mandatory employer
social security matching funding it goes to $18,700. Under the old
law it would be $13,500 plus social security matching it would be
about $14,400. This $4,300 difference would then be multiplied by
each employee currently earning the minimum wage.

If you are a small business employer with basically unskilled labor
and you have 10 employess this means an extra 43,000 per year. If
you are making a 10% net profit on your gross sales this means
having an extra $430,000 per year in gross to just cover the
increased payroll costs. This does not include the extra state and
federal corporate taxes on the increased gross sales.

Something has to give and it will mean JOBS. Either the employer
cuts back on the number of hours or cuts back on their employees and
cuts back on new hires. Or does all of the above.

You do not even want to get into the discussions on the major impact
on restaurants because of the cross-purposes SF minimum wage law and
tips taxes laid out in federal and stae laws.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

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

  Thanks Steve, but I wouldn't know how to expand it without

branching

into other topics. I've already said what I set out to say about

wage

restriction laws.

Yours in liberty,
            <<< Starchild >>>

>
>> Here's another idea for using language more accurately and
>> effectively. Criticizing laws requiring a "minimum wage" is

going to

>> sound to some people like criticizing motherhood or apple pie.

Instead

>> of talking about "the minimum wage," better to talk about "wage
>> restrictions." Here's an example of how one might approach it.
>
> Great idea Starchild! I think this (expanded a bit) would make an
> excellent article for the LPSF and other LP web sites.
>
> -- Steve
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ---------------------~-->
> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or

Lexmark

> Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US

&