The regulatory structure was put in place because the government considered the "common good" of the factories to outweigh a handful of individuals' property values (and health, but I digress).
That's an interesting point. I definitely see how regulation has come around as a result of protecting business practices, however I think we would disagree on that necessarily being the case now. Even if the FDA, EPA, etc are overly burdensome, the ultimate intent is to ensure that consumer safety is paramount, rather than business practices. (Yes, I'm sure a case could easily be made that lobbyists ensure that anti-competitive language is built into the very same laws, ensuring that the big Pharma companies maintain their hegemony...) Regardless, to use the same example, I'll have to stand by my original statement, that even if we're allowing 100ppm, we have to start somewhere. Pollution is a necessary byproduct of our current economy, and we simply have to put limits (in good faith) on how much damage a company can cause. (A La PG+E/Hinkley, California) The consequences, as you say of removing some civil recourse is unfortunate, but I'd rather take those particular cases of injustice against what I see as a over-arching environment of injustice were we to remove all/most regulations. Like most conversations with libertarians I've had, it comes down to opinions, because the argument is based on "faith" more than empirical fact or ability to show absolute cause.
Re: The minimum wage piece. I struggle on this note A: Because I simply don't know enough, in spite of my reading into it to make a personal assessment, and B: That my cynicism about employer abuses makes it difficult to believe that a removal of minimum wages wouldn't have a negative impact. I've had multiple long (and drunk) conversations with a good Econ friend of mine who argues against price floors, et al.
On the one hand, businesses constantly pass on their increased costs to their customers, so if for example, the rate of inflation increases and costs go up, then they raise their prices and move on. Unfortunately there is a reverse to this. An employee (lets say for the argument that he's a minimum wage employee) hired at $7.25/hr works for a company for 10 years will likely lose 10-20% of his earning capacity if he were paid the same over that 10 year period. He cannot "pass on" the increased costs of living, his only option is to work more hours or to get another job. Both perfectly reasonable in theory, but given the current economy a very poor likelihood. That being said, minimum wages ensure that American workers will at least maintain a minimum level of buying power year to year. Again though, there are other macro/micro economics that play into this re: unemployment etc. that I simply don't have enough information to judge on.
Lastly, good chat as well. I rarely agree with you but at least you've got the ability to reason your arguments out. Other libertarians on here...coughnonames...tend to resort to strawmen and attacks which essentially mandates that I ignore them out of pocket.
(p.s. Tell your friend I get his plight. I picked up a sales job where I was working 80 hours a week, making minimum wage for only 40 of them. I would have made more money if I'd done those 0.01 cent/per click jobs. The only caveat to this is your statement: And chances are if someone is willing to sell labor for $4/hr, they need it. I wish that in an ideal world I could believe that...but I find myself just a little too worried about an oppressive monopoly selling their labor for $4/hr, not because it was necessary, but because they could exploit their workforce.)
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 20/7/11 22:03 (UTC)That's an interesting point. I definitely see how regulation has come around as a result of protecting business practices, however I think we would disagree on that necessarily being the case now. Even if the FDA, EPA, etc are overly burdensome, the ultimate intent is to ensure that consumer safety is paramount, rather than business practices. (Yes, I'm sure a case could easily be made that lobbyists ensure that anti-competitive language is built into the very same laws, ensuring that the big Pharma companies maintain their hegemony...) Regardless, to use the same example, I'll have to stand by my original statement, that even if we're allowing 100ppm, we have to start somewhere. Pollution is a necessary byproduct of our current economy, and we simply have to put limits (in good faith) on how much damage a company can cause. (A La PG+E/Hinkley, California) The consequences, as you say of removing some civil recourse is unfortunate, but I'd rather take those particular cases of injustice against what I see as a over-arching environment of injustice were we to remove all/most regulations. Like most conversations with libertarians I've had, it comes down to opinions, because the argument is based on "faith" more than empirical fact or ability to show absolute cause.
Re: The minimum wage piece. I struggle on this note A: Because I simply don't know enough, in spite of my reading into it to make a personal assessment, and B: That my cynicism about employer abuses makes it difficult to believe that a removal of minimum wages wouldn't have a negative impact. I've had multiple long (and drunk) conversations with a good Econ friend of mine who argues against price floors, et al.
On the one hand, businesses constantly pass on their increased costs to their customers, so if for example, the rate of inflation increases and costs go up, then they raise their prices and move on. Unfortunately there is a reverse to this. An employee (lets say for the argument that he's a minimum wage employee) hired at $7.25/hr works for a company for 10 years will likely lose 10-20% of his earning capacity if he were paid the same over that 10 year period. He cannot "pass on" the increased costs of living, his only option is to work more hours or to get another job. Both perfectly reasonable in theory, but given the current economy a very poor likelihood. That being said, minimum wages ensure that American workers will at least maintain a minimum level of buying power year to year. Again though, there are other macro/micro economics that play into this re: unemployment etc. that I simply don't have enough information to judge on.
Lastly, good chat as well. I rarely agree with you but at least you've got the ability to reason your arguments out. Other libertarians on here...coughnonames...tend to resort to strawmen and attacks which essentially mandates that I ignore them out of pocket.
(p.s. Tell your friend I get his plight. I picked up a sales job where I was working 80 hours a week, making minimum wage for only 40 of them. I would have made more money if I'd done those 0.01 cent/per click jobs. The only caveat to this is your statement: And chances are if someone is willing to sell labor for $4/hr, they need it.
I wish that in an ideal world I could believe that...but I find myself just a little too worried about an oppressive monopoly selling their labor for $4/hr, not because it was necessary, but because they could exploit their workforce.)