Disclaimer: You are looking at a post I wrote some time ago. The information and opinions contained within may be outdated and may differ from my current views. Please proceed accordingly.

Gephardt is an Old School Dem

Jan 13, 2004 12:43 PM
Tags:
I agree entirely with this Mises bloggers analysis of Dick Gephardt's proposal for an international minimum wage:
Gephardt's Revolution Begins with a Global Minimum Wage (La Times and many other sources): What at first appears to be a case of extreme economic ignorance might as well be a plot to dis-employ all workers of the world who are not members of the labor unions he expects to fund his presidential campaign.
I'd go so far as to say it's anti-worker, anti-consumer and anti-business. And, of course, the massive costs of compliance and enforcement aren't even addressed.

I can't believe this is a battle we still have to fight.

Comments: Gephardt is an Old School Dem

I just love how you and people like those at the Mises institute use "it's bad for the economy / [someone] knows nothing of politics / etc.," when you really mean, "it doesn't funnel money from the poor upward, into the hands of the wealthy" or "it makes the gap between the wealthy and poor smaller."

Just come out and say what you mean.

Posted by: O'dell on January 13, 2004 8:27 PM | permalink

That should have been " [someone] knows nothing of economics."

Posted by: O'dell on January 13, 2004 8:28 PM | permalink

Economics isn't a zero sum game, and if the rich get richer, it isn't necessarily at the expense of the poor.

If a company wants to hire an adult at $4/hour and the person would rather have that then be unemployed, I think it's unethical to deny them that right.

Posted by: Joe Grossberg on January 14, 2004 10:59 AM | permalink

Wealth isn't magically created, it has to come from somewhere. I forget where I was reading this, but there's a correlation between wealth in the US expanding while wealth in poor countries (and domestically) shrinks. Yes, it is at the expense of the poor.

Posted by: O'dell on January 14, 2004 4:32 PM | permalink

Wealth most certainly *is* created, and not through magic.

Every single time two people engage in a voluntary transaction, the world is wealthier.

It's a basic premise of market economics.

Otherwise, are you going to tell me that the average person's standard of living today is no better than it was at the turn of the century? It's just distributed differently?

I'm not going to debate this. It's a waste of my time.

Posted by: Joe Grossberg on January 14, 2004 6:14 PM | permalink

WTF? Did you even read my post? I said that it *isn't* magically created and has to come from somewhere.

That source is often a couple things - the wealthy taking advantage of the poor and (as much of the US's wealth in the early times was made) through literal slavery. It would be interesting to know the direct monetary impact slavery has had on the economy. How much "old money" got its inertia from that?

Posted by: O'dell on January 14, 2004 10:06 PM | permalink

Looks like I was right about this one, and someone knows it.

Posted by: O'dell on January 16, 2004 5:58 PM | permalink

No more comments! Either someone has violated Godwin's Law, I'm tired of the discussion or, most likely, the ten-week window has closed. You can, however, contact me through email.