>You have not made an argument for why a price floor is necessary or desirable. I'm pretty sure that's all I did. Your inability to see that is on you. >"The

>You have not made an argument for why a price floor is necessary or desirable. I'm pretty sure that's all I did. Your inability to see that is on you. >"The good argument for having a maximum 'price of bread' is that without it, bread prices will be pressured up, because every bakery on the planet wants prices as high as possible, and they generally have the means to achieve it." You can say that all you want, but you haven't provided a justification that it's actually true, or that the situation warrants legislation of one interest over the other. No. You have provided that justification. You just said what the justification for maximum price of bread is. But those businesses don't have the means to achieve maximum bread price. And if bread was being sold for billions of dollars per slice, the price almost certainly would be regulated down. For exactly the arguments you've made: without it bread becomes absurdly expensive. >The market forces of supply and demand create pressures both up and down on wages, and an equilibrium between them is what allows markets to be efficient. Efficient at what? Efficient at reaching equilibrium. Not efficient at meeting the goals of society, which involve complex moral and political conditions not captured or measured by any market. >Equating jobs to slavery is an outrageous argument, and disingenuous. It is not. Especially with wages being systematically driven down to below what is necessary for survival. The minimum wage was created because there were real problems caused by not having it. Negative wages have existed in a "free" market.