afo@pucc-h (sefton) (08/10/84)
I think what Mr Kelly is trying to point out here, is that there are quite a few of our industrialists who have a firm grasp of economics. Malthusian Economics, that is. If you remember your Malthus, he felt that the population of the earth was outstripping the means to provide for the population. One of the ways he felt that the population could be controlled was by paying subsistence wages to workers, so they could barely take care of themselves, and not go littering the earth with excess children. A lot of people only seem to have heard the subsistence wages part, and not the reasoning behind it. It is analogous to those who practice 'Scientific Management', without realising that Taylor felt that the money saved by increased efficiency of workers should be paid back to the workers (*surprise!*). Now, if we look at the human species and decide that they are a nasty, selfish lot, only interested in their own short term gains, we should begin to appreciate Mr Kelly's argument. If we do away with the minimum wage, within a generation or two, we'll find the larger part of the population barely making it, and a very small percentage doing quite well (and no, I'm not going to get Dickensian). People who can barely afford to get by can't afford to send the kiddies off to college, so there won't be a lot of upward mobility through education. There will probably be a very clear and distinct class distinction. Those who belong to the class that *has* will continue to reap the benefits of cheap labour, while those who belong the the labour class will have a rather short, nasty, and brutish life. Of course, sooner or later, enough people in the labour class will decide that they don't want to live like they do, and the folks at the top of the hill will suddenly find themselves sporting an extra smile. Now, I realise that this *is* a 'worst-case-scenario'; but it is an extrapolation upon the effects of removing minimum wages.... Laurie pucc-k:afo
nrh@inmet.UUCP (08/22/84)
>***** inmet:net.politics / pucc-h!afo / 4:29 pm Aug 10, 1984 >Now, if we look at the human species and decide that they are a nasty, >selfish lot, only interested in their own short term gains, we should begin >to appreciate Mr Kelly's argument. If we do away with the minimum wage, >within a generation or two, we'll find the larger part of the population >barely making it, and a very small percentage doing quite well (and no, >I'm not going to get Dickensian). People who can barely afford to get by >can't afford to send the kiddies off to college, so there won't be a lot >of upward mobility through education. There will probably be a very clear >and distinct class distinction. Those who belong to the class that *has* >will continue to reap the benefits of cheap labour, while those who >belong the the labour class will have a rather short, nasty, and brutish >life. Of course, sooner or later, enough people in the labour class will >decide that they don't want to live like they do, and the folks at the >top of the hill will suddenly find themselves sporting an extra smile. > >Now, I realise that this *is* a 'worst-case-scenario'; but it is an >extrapolation upon the effects of removing minimum wages.... Malthus is now so thoroughly discredited that it's hard to get excited about this argument. The minimum wage *DISCOURAGES* the poor from improving their lot, by making it impractical to train them by giving them (initially) low-paying jobs. Get this through your head, please -- the folks "at the top of the hill" BENEFIT from minimum wages -- it discourages the competition that would erode their fortunes. My own feeling about the "if-we-don't-give-the-poor-enough-welfare-they'll- revolt-and-kill-us-all" argument is that it is hooey! Poverty is bad, but feeling TRAPPED by poverty is worse. Making $2.50/hr has little dignity, but is endurable if one knows that one can "work up" to better things. Finding that you CAN'T get a job is a cause for despair. The folks "at the top of the hill" are probably only alive because the folks at the bottom don't know what they're paying to keep trade union bosses happy.