The problem with arguing against a minimum wage increase is that the same logic used against the *increase* can be used against the minimum wage as a whole.
Starting around age 8, children began working the coal mines. In 1885 a law required boys to be at least twelve to work in the coal breakers and at least fourteen to work inside the mines.
Using the exact same anti-min-wage logic, many would see that 1885 law as wrong-headed, because the children and the mine owner came to an agreement over the value of their labor, and the government should not intrude into the free market in such ways.
Banning children from coal mines created a lot of unemployment and hard times for a lot of families too. Families counted on that money. Some people probably even died from that decision. Shitty. Nonetheless, 100 years later, I think it was the right move and a net benefit to the country.
Certainly not a 1 to 1 analogy, as there were other people -- adults -- willing to work in the coal mines... but for more money.
Effectively barring child labor is setting a minimum wage as it forces employers to pay more to adults.
So, anti min wagers -- why not child labor? If your answer is anything like "because the damage done to children isnt worth the long term societal cost." then I would say we are actually in total agreement. I say the long term societal costs of allowing the top 1% of income earners to capture literally 99% of all growth over *30 years* is a very bad thing for the outlook of the country over the next 150 years.
Reply With Quote