The Shotgun Blog
« Small town talk radio | Main | The wages of crime »
Monday, December 17, 2007
The wages of labour
We're in the heart of the Christmas shopping season so, once again, employers are taking advantage of the busy retail market by forcing young, part-time workers to work for lower-than-fair wages.
Or, at least, that's the way leftists, progressives and Mary Woo Sims, my weekly debating partner in the Tri-City News see it.
I, on the other hand, advance a decidedly more common-sense and free-market point of view about the whole issue of government-mandated minimum wages.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on December 17, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54fbb64318834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The wages of labour:
Comments
You couldn't hire anyone to work here in the Calgary area or along the AB Highway 2 corridor for a mere $10/hr.
The question is why anyone would want to make $10/hr. and pay Union dues out of it.
Oh wait, this Union shill, Jim Sinclair, doesn't get a cut of BC minimum wage earners pay cheques, .... yet.
Why then does it behoove him to speak for what his dues payers would call 'scabs' if he really doesn't represent them?
The real question is:
What would it profit ANY Union Worker to strike for higher wages if ALL workers were Union Workers and they couldn't get one up on the 'scabs' by striking if everybody in a particular labour market got the same raise?
Clearly everyone would get more money which would drive inflation up and that larger pay cheque would buy LESS.
Jim Sinclair is NOT representing the best interests of his Union brethren here, but he is trying to put a brake on the economy and represent some foreign interest.
What could that interest be?
Posted by: Speller | 2007-12-17 2:22:12 PM
I call BS on all this minimum wage crap.
These part-time seasonal jobs are not meant to be a career path, just a way of some people making e extra money. Fast-food joints are the same.
Let the market decide what a fair wage is. Speller alluded to it with his comment about no one working for ten bucks an hour along the Hwy.2 corridor.
Posted by: atric | 2007-12-17 3:46:43 PM
In the debate, Terry writes: "It’s difficult to see, therefore, how Sinclair and my colleague on the other side of the page can say they are defenders of the downtrodden worker when the policy they support forces employers to pay higher-than-market rates for workers, thus limiting their ability to grow, create new jobs and create wealth."
You might also point out to Sinclair, who cites the fact that teenagers are the primary recipients of minimum wages, that raising the minimum wage prices out precisely these marginal (in the technical economic sense of this word) workers. For many of these teens, these are entrance jobs, they are what build the employee's reputation. They are a *starting* point. They need an employment history to move up.
I'm reminded of the funny situation many face when trying to build a credit history. You don't get credit unless you have a credit history. But you can't get credit initially without, uhm, a history of... well, you get the idea.
But who will risk it? And why should anyone risk it? What Sinclair misses is the fact that raising the minimum wage will harm most precisely those people it is intended to help. The unintended consequence is more stringent employment laws, that further increase a company's cost to hire an employee, thereby giving teenagers and those without a good record of employment yet another hurdle to leap before they're hired.
And then the zinger:
"I suppose, though, that when one is interpreting everything through the lens of an anti-capitalist worldview, even common sense can be interpreted as a manifestation of oppression."
Well done, Terry!
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2007-12-17 3:47:17 PM
"There’s no coercion in any of this, and that’s the way it should be."
Of course there's coercion. It's called mass immigration and/or employing foreign workers which either drives wages down or exempts companies employing foreign workers from paying the going wage.
Posted by: DJ | 2007-12-17 4:07:37 PM
Mass immigration happens too slowly to account for the low wages paid to entry level workers. The market must be the arbiter of wages. There is a good reason for many jobs moving offshore. As a people we must make ourselves worthy of the wages we seek.
Posted by: DML | 2007-12-17 6:33:22 PM
According to Stats Canada the inverse effect in Mexico caused wages to rise.
"In Mexico, emigration has resulted in a decline in the labour supply and, consequently, an increase in wages. The study found that the effect on Mexican wages was almost identical in scale, though the changes were in the opposite direction. A labour supply decline of 10% was estimated to induce a wage increase of 3% to 4%."
It appears the fewer we are, the more deserving we become! :)
Posted by: DJ | 2007-12-17 9:59:02 PM
And in Ft. McMurray $18 per hour is not uncommon for a clerk position in a 7-Eleven. It is called supply and demand. You know...the reason that most professional associations exist...to manage the supply with ever increasing educational demands!!
Posted by: Jerri | 2007-12-17 10:30:06 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.