7 Comments:

Mark, I read your posts and I'm guessing each of us could predict the other's arguments pretty well so that I'm at a bit of a loss to come up with something original to say on the topic. But how about this: You mention that workers are free to leave jobs that don't pay a living wage so we shouldn't shed any tears for the ones working there since no one is forcing them to stay. Should we take a similar tack on wealthy tax payers who who complain that progressive taxation "punishes success" and tell them they are free to take a job that puts them in a lower tax bracket? After all, no one is forcing them to pay taxes at that rate if they don't want to so why should I lose any sleep over their whining?

By  Jambo, at 3:22 PM  

Jambo, you may have topped yourself.

The more I read your comment, the less sense it makes. You ask Should we take a similar tack on wealthy tax payers...? and it's not clear what your answer is. I think I can safely say you have no sympathy for those taxpayers, so are you saying "yes?" On the other hand, you're apparently ridiculing Mark's argument, so maybe you're saying "no." Or maybe you're trying to paint Mark into a corner by implicitly claiming that something voluntary, like an employer/employee relationship, is equivalent a law.

Let's apply this last idea to another law recently passed in your former home state. South Dakota women are free to live in another state, or to not get pregnant, right? Clearly you wouldn't agree with that one.

By  Joey de Vivre, at 4:07 PM  

I think my problem may be that in addressing a comment to someone I have had a number of debates with in the past (respectful and interesting debates I might add) I am skipping several steps in laying out an argument because I think I know how he will react to a particular point. In short, I DON"T think my argument about progressive taxes is a legitimate one, but I raise it as an analogy to the argument that living or minimum wages laws aren't needed because no one is forcing workers to take those jobs. That is the argument many libertarians (and objectivists as I find out) like to make and I think it is equally illegitimate.

By  Jambo, at 4:19 PM  

I think "force" comes in many different forms. Certainly most people taking a job likely to be subject to living wage laws are forced to do so out of economic necessity. And yes I understand how you would not find that to be the same control over an individual that actions by the government are. But as I tried to point out in a comment on your blog a while ago (and didn't do a very good job, clarity of argument does not seem to be my forte of late!) I don't think the distinction is as clear as you do. When we decide that free markets are the only value we live by we set into motion events that inevitably lead to certain outcomes. We shouldn't pretend that we have not CHOSEN those outcomes by choosing unfettered markets. Those outcomes are only one set of many we could choose to produce. Even if we decide those outcomes are the best ones I don't think we should think they are "natural" or value neutral.

It seems that libertarians (and objectivists) think that if the market forces someone to take a course of action it is considered legitimate but if a fairly elected government does so it is illegitimate. Is that to say markets trump democracy? I think markets are very useful and powerful things but I don't think we should forget who is in charge here. People are, or they should be. People may make plenty of bad decisions about markets but that is something we have to live with and try to minimize. Most of the time markets should be left to work as they will but that does not mean interference is not sometimes justified. We can argue about what are useful and harmful levels of interference but I think people are citizens first, consumers second.

For what it is worth I'm not as crazy about living wage laws as Hammer might be. I'd want to have a better grasp of the economic impacts before I really made up my mind on the subject. And yeah, the ACORN folks really seem a bit over the top.

By  Jambo, at 1:03 PM  

Assuming Mark's analysis of the ordinance is correct, then this is a very narrowly targeted law aimed at Wal-Mart. For as much as I dislike their business practices, I don't think it's appropriate to require them -- and more or less only them -- to pay a living wage in your city.

I think living wage ordinances can be a good idea, just like minimum wage laws are a good idea. Remember that the policy of the government is to keep a pool of people unemployed to prevent competition in the labor market that drives up wages. That means there's always a surplus of low skill, low wage workers. It's not an equal bargaining position. Therefore, you need a minimum wage both to prevent a race to the bottom of the wage scale and to reward work.

By  Hammer, at 1:24 PM  

That's one of the nicest things anyone has ever said about this fourth-rate blog.

By  Hammer, at 10:03 PM  

I think an active comments section is a very good thing for a blog so it just makes sense to take people seriously and be polite about disagreements. I also like having an arena to try out different ideas. I don't know about anyone else here but I often have arguments that I make only to friends and family who already share my views. It's nice to take those ideas out for a real test drive with someone who wants to run them off the road. It makes you tighten up your reasoning and adjust your thinking when someone finds decent counter arguments. And maybe it's just a personal quirk of mine but I think it is more fun to argue with people than just insult them. Well, people other than Katherine Kersten.

By  Jambo, at 11:07 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home