4 ms·
>>A minimum wage is simply not moral. It prevents me and you from entering into an employment agreement with which we may both benefit. Instead, the government
by bluecalm 11y ago
>>A minimum wage is simply not moral. It prevents me and you from entering into an employment agreement with which we may both benefit. Instead, the government is telling me how I have to interact with you.
This argument doesn't make any sense. It is often the case that preventing people from entering a contract thy both benefit from is beneficial for society. It's a standard social dilemma example of which is tragedy of commons.
You may argue against minimum wage but "simply not moral" is just a wrong argument. This kind of thinking is what frustrates me about common libertarian arguments. You can't just ignore social dilemma implications when arguing for voluntarily contract being the end of it.
- jrs235 11y agoI lean libertarian. I don't think the argument is as much libertarian as it is Austrian Economics. What gets me going is that most GOP/Republican/conservative folks that clamor against the minimum wage are Keynesians. And if they are then they condradict themselves when they tout the importance of a strong economy and GDP yet argue against a minimum wage. If you're Keynesian you believe demand drives the economy and GDP. Well if the majority/working class doesn't have disposable income then they can't buy all the trinkets and toys that companies are producing thus grinding things to a halt. There's only so much demand for yachts. Austrians can, in a less contradictory way, argue against a minimum wage. But everyone can't continue to ignore parts of reality. Yes, there are social implications and to dismiss them is no different than dismissing emotions in arguments and marketing, or politics in offices. They exist and must be included and dealt with when trying to make "rational" and prudent choices.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]