Billboard Jobs

spencer: "Of course, I realize that there is no causal relationship here"

IMO, that's the most important part of your post. I think you were trying to imply a causal relationship. Otherwise, why try to show that minimum wage hikes and real income moved in tandem?

My guess - and it's only that - is that real income growth came first, and it allowed near-meaningless hikes in the minimum wage.

Artificially raising the wage floor by over $2.00 an hour will not be meaningless.

in the 1950s, 1960s,and 1970s we had rapid increases in the minimum wage and it was associated with strong growth in capital per worker which was associated with rapid growth in real per capita income.

After the late 1970s-early 1980 we saw a massive decline in the real minimum wage as nominal minimum wages stagnated. It was accompanied by stagnating real capital stock per employee and stagnating real income growth for the typical employees. Of course, I realize that there is no causal relationship here, but the change in trend growth rate of the economic well being of the popultion is fantastic.

I mean even through there is a wealth of evidence that has emerged in main stream economics over the last 20 years that increases in the minimum wage do not lead to drop in employment -- only the National Restaurant Association and David Nuemark

have been able to find any evidence that implies that moderate increases in the minimum wage leads to a drop in minimum wage employment -- I will not confuse any of the readers or writers of this blog with these facts.

Even the msasive drop in the real minimum wage over the last quarter century has not been associated with a drop in the percent of the black teenage population not employeed. Of course all of the theories advanced at this blog strong imply that the drop in the real minimum wage should have caused black teenage employemnet to soar. But, again, I do not want to confuse any of your with the actual evidence.

Don Bourdreaux, in the original post, is repeating illogic exposed about half a century ago.

The whole point of representative government is that we elect leaders who understand the problems of the minimum wage better than the general public, and who will protect the rights of those who would be hurt by such fallacious, populist policy.

If the Republicans can't stand in the face of simple public ignorance, then they're just unprincipled political hacks like the Democrats, and no more deserving of power.

Steven W. takes a lot of grief here and at other sites such as Economist's View, which tends to take positions quite opposite those taken here.

Perhaps, instead of hurling insults at those who question the "truth" of the posts, it might be better to offer up some serious support... in this case... published studies that both support and question the assumption that raising minimum wages is detrimental to those who hold minimum wage jobs.

I know that isn't as much fun as supplying anecdotes, but it could be an antidote for brow-beating. Of course, if enough studies disagree, then the issue goes back to the political arena where hurling insults is considered intelligent debate.

Steven Warshawsky: "It's a sure political loser, and will gain no added supporters for the free market perspective."

I agree it is right now a loser position. What is needed - what has been needed for a long time - is for the voting public to understand economics. I guess that means the most important issue is what gets taught in high schools.

I disagree that opposing the minimum wage "will only discredit your entire philosophy in the public's eye." The key will be in convincing the general public of the harm wrought by minimum wage laws. That's admittedly a long term battle.

I'm referring to the libertarian philosophy, of course, and not to the Libertarian Party, as you have. One can be for democratic principles without endorsing the Democratic Party. Likewise, one can believe in general libertarian principles without endorsing the Libertarian Party.

Steven,

You do have a point about the Republican party and the minimum wage. I've been thinking that the best strategy would be to go the Democrats one better. If the Dems want $7.20, raise it to $8.20. Make it obvious that its just a political game. Stupid ideas will only be destroyed when people see clearly that they are stupid ideas. If the people say they want it, give it to 'em, good and hard.

Are we discussing the economic equivalent of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or are we talking about making public policy in the real world?

In the real world, even the most fervent advocates of laissez faire are constrained by existing political and economic arrangements. Among these constraints, whether you like it or not, is public opinion.

Telling the public that you want to abolish all minimum wage laws, all government safety nets, all workplace safety rules, blah blah blah, will NOT move you closer to your goal of greater economic freedom, because taking such "extremist" positions will only discredit your entire philosophy in the public's eye. (And the liberal propaganda machine will do its very best to paint your position in the darkest of terms.)

While the Libertarian Party can afford to fight such quixotic battles -- because it is a meaningless political force -- the Republican Party cannot. If the Republican Party wishes to move the country in the direction of greater economic freedom, it has to pick and choose its battles wisely.

I don't see much wisdom in opposing the proposed min wage increase. It's a sure political loser, and will gain no added supporters for the free market perspective.

'It seems to me that money qualifies as private property. So do you oppose any form of taxation that results in the taxpayer not receiving a benefit'

Well, it did take a Constitutional Amendment to give us the income tax. And, the whole idea of government is that it's a benefit to the people, so yes.

Btw, flaggers on highways are covered by Davis Bacon prevailing wage law, so they're usually paid well above market wages.

"Umm, what do you think they do with these profits, hide them under their mattress? More profits equals more investment or consumption leading to.... more jobs!"

Sure. Investment and consumption. But when the factories are increasingly automated or overseas, the money isn't going to people so much. It's just going to other capitalists. And they make huge returns on their investment while the rest of us are stuck with jack-shit. It's pretty much the easiest thing in the world to make a ton of money once you have a ton of money. You just toss it in a mutual fund and you're done. But for the poor people it's nearly impossible.

Think about following the money hard and long, and you'll see what I mean. Of course, the internet is a major help to the underdogs, but how long is that gonna last?

One thing that has been batted around quite a few times in this discussion is the idea of "good vs. bad". That many of us on here don't like min. wage laws because they are "bad". It almost sounds as if these laws are running around robbing people with a gun in one hand and crack pipe in the other. And we can do nothing but sit on the corner and say "Oh no, the BAD laws are coming to get us. I hope the GOOD laws will come save us."

Min. wage laws, trade barriers, unions, etc promote inefficiency. All of these things are ultimately sold to the population at large as a "benefit to society". Good vs. Bad promotes a knee jerk reaction. This type of rhetoric encourages more philosophicaly charged debate than anything else, because it morally reprehensible to be for "bad" things.

But this idea of good vs. bad is not actually a premise of economics. The issue is efficient vs. inefficient. Drs. Roberts and Boudreau (sp?) have spent a lot of time and effort to promote the idea of effective communication from economists.

To effectively communicate our point we need to abandon any premise of good vs. bad, and use better language.

Minimum wage laws promote the ineffiecent use of resources. They force a new and unnatural set of parameters onto decision makers (ie business people). The ability to contract labor at a market determined rate allows business people to do EXACTLY what they determine to be the most efficient use of their resources. On the other hand, minimum wage laws force business people to consider things like "At 3.50 an hour (approx $7,000 annually) I was going to hire three people ($21,000 annually) but min. wage laws will force me to 7.00 an hour (42,000 annually for all three employees) so I will just invest XYZ Capital imrovement and hire one worker." Instead of being allowed to make such decisions on their own business people are forced to do things that they would not normally do in a free market.

------------------------------------------


It is ironic to me that we discuss the framer's intent in discussions of Constitutionality yet we often ignore the economic climate that encourged those men to rebel against England:

1. High taxes that provided little benefit in the form of social services or defense for those that paid them.

2. Government mandated monopolies that forced above market prices onto consumers.

It seems apparent to me that the framers considered high taxes and government mandated monopolies to be in opposition to the liberty that they fought and died for.

The purpose of the constitution was/is to define and constrain the federal government.

But safegaurding liberty cannot be left up to a document or to politicians and bureaucrats.

People act according to what they believe is their self-interest, either in or outside of government. It's just that people inside of government may have more power than those outside. Unless you are very wealthy.

JohnDewey has some great points in his Jan 13, 2007 7:23:22 PM post.

I'll add one: "The government shall mint no currency with a face value less that its scrap value" (noting the penny and the nickel now cost more than their face values, and can be melted down at a profit...)

undergroundman: "So yeah. Those beliefs are crazy"

Sorry, but I don't see anything crazy about eliminating federal government safety nets. I also don't see why governments should fund pure scientific research. As for the other three positions you criticized, I confess I haven't studied them. I certainly wouldn't call such ideas crazy just because I may disagree with them.

I don't agree with all libertarian positions. My guess is that few who call themselves libertarians would either. But just because one doesn't endorse alll of the libertarians ideas is no reason to reject their general principles.

I know several people who feel that abortion is not only crazy but also murder. That hasn't stopped them from being Democrats, presumably because they agree with more Democratic positions than with those of other parties or philosophies.

"Of course, then we must face the fact that all of these new profits (especially in the billboard example) are being shunted straight to the rich capitalists/investors, and must recognize the fact that the welfare state will likely have to grow to allow the less-skilled workers to survive."

Umm, what do you think they do with these profits, hide them under their mattress? More profits equals more investment or consumption leading to.... more jobs! Simplified I know, but I can't imagine a downside to people making more money when it comes to them honestly.

Isaac

Why not let those jobs go the way of the dinosaur? I think that's the better question.

Of course, then we must face the fact that all of these new profits (especially in the billboard example) are being shunted straight to the rich capitalists/investors, and must recognize the fact that the welfare state will likely have to grow to allow the less-skilled workers to survive.

"Do you honestly feel these positions held by most libertarians represent a "mere blip"?"

No, those aren't. But the others that seem to come with orthodox libertarianism are, such as:

1) Deregulated (natural and unnatural) monopolies.


2) Zero regulation for activities which cause external harms.


3) Zero governmental safety net.


4) Zero funding for pure scientific research.


5) Zero environmental protection.

So yeah. Those beliefs are crazy. I like libertarianism, but I definitely see those problems with its mainstream platform.

Steven,

My point in emphasizing individual responsibility, private property, and contract, is that the minimum wage undermines them all. I don't see a gain to the "general welfare". I see a significant loss.

You're just being an idiot.

"Due" is listed as a synonym for "just" at dictionary.com. If you're hung up on such semantics, then you've lost your ability to reason.

You're just as stupid as liberals (and might as well be one) if you're going to accept a minimum wage simply because "all public policies have economic effects."

Public policies *do* have economic effects, but none are more contrary to the stated goals of the policy than the minimum wage.

I'm glad you've chosen to be a statist; that is your right. Now, are you just going to accept the product of the democratic process, or are you going to demand that our representative government be intellectually honest about its policies?

The people here already know that most people are too economically ignorant to understand the minimum wage. Are you here to defend mass ignorance, or to promote education.

For a conservative, you make me quite sick.

Randy --

Of course it takes more than a constitution to make a nation work. Although according to most "libertarians," it doesn't take much more than an agglomeration of individuals "freely contracting" with one another to constitute a nation. As a conservative, I believe that a "nation" is much more than this (i.e., common language, broadly shared political and ethical frameworks, shared sense of history and culture, bonds of "brotherhood" that go beyond mere commerce, and so on).

But my point (in response to Russell) was simply that the U.S. Constitution does not enact Ayn Rand's libertarian vision. So one cannot necessarily rely on the text or history of the Constitution to support a libertarian argument. Sometimes, yes; sometimes, no.

Similarly, I'm all in favor of "individual responsibility, private property, and contract" -- but those labels alone do not provide answers to specific public policy questions. At best, they provide concepts that inform our analysis and positions. But these are not the *only* concepts and values that are relevant.

Procrustes --

I am well aware of "the role of relative prices in signalling for business decisions between capital and labour." But this concept does not answer the question whether min wage laws are necessarily bad. To answer that question requires defining, and defending, what one means by "bad" and explaining why it applies in a particular situation.

I stick to my initial comment that it is a non sequitur to conclude that min wage laws are "bad" simply because they have particular economic effects.

All public policies have economic effects. All ways of defining the "rules of the game" influence business decisions. But to get from the IS to the OUGHT, you need a set of philosophical and ethical principles that guide your analysis and judgment -- and those principles are open to debate.

Russell --

If the Constitution has any meaning, surely that meaning inheres in the

actual words used in the document (just like with any other written contract). Once you start allowing different words to be used ("due" instead of "just"), then you're no longer engaged in constitutional interpreptation -- you are merely doing philosophy. As a conservative, I cannot subscribe to this decidedly liberal and extralegal mode of interpretation.

You all need some facts on flagmen at construction sites. It used to be that the position of flagmen was a reward to the older guys who had put in many years of hard construction work. They were making pretty good change by that time and were allowed to spend their last few years as flagmen at their same wage level. It was a sweet deal for a guy who had proven himself and deserved it.

Affirmative action for women ended all that. Construction companies now fill their quota of female hires by giving them the flagman job, at a wage rate considerably higher than the minimum wage. Women get the flag jobs because there are few other jobs on a highway construction site they can do physically.

Personally, I think it sucks. A pretty young thing now gets to do the job that used to reserved as a plum reward after many years of hard work. She could do a lot of other jobs. Her horizons are unlimited, but she takes a job from a guy who earned it the hard way and has no other prospects.

This is another example of how a free market is usually more just than a market plagued by government interference.

Umm, if I could just return to the point of Steven M W's original comment.

He asked what was the point of the post.

In doing so, he demonstrated a poor grasp of the role of relative prices in signalling for business decisions between capital and labour.

The original post was no non sequiter.

Minimum wage legislation would undoubtedly influence decisions about employing labour of different skill levels and choices between labour and capital.

New technology is only relevant to this discussion to the extent that its take up is influenced by this change in relative prices.

This billboard example is no libertarian rant and is one that I intend to use to illustrate some of my many concerns with minimum wage legislation.

Steven,

I'd say it takes more than a constitution to make a nation work. For example, what do we mean when we speak of the "general welfare"? Does the phrase override our belief in the value of individual responsibility, private property, and contract? I'd say not. In fact, I'd say the idea of a "general welfare" is meaningless without these more basic beliefs - an impossibility.

The paper, if he is arguing that due is different than just.

Is your allegiance to the paper or the ideas that are writ upon the paper?

Very interesting discussion.

Russell --

The Constitution (which I've read and wrote about many times) does not use the phrase "due compensation" -- it says "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." (Fifth Amend.)

So the question is what constitutes "just" compensation? Assuming we rely on the understanding and intent of the Framers of the Fifth Amend (which I consider the most appropriate interpretive principle), I am quite confident that they did not think in such Randian terms as "individuals must be not sacrificed for the group." Such radical individualism would be wholly foreign to their way of thinking, and way of life.

The Constitution most definitely is not a libertarian document. See, e.g., Art. I, sec. 8: "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. . . . To raise and support armies. . . . To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers." Etc.

While a libertarian perspective can (and should) inform the choices we make in these various areas, the Constitution does not enact Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy, anymore than it enacts "Mr. Herbert Spencer's social statics." (Justice Holmes in Lochner v. New York)

As a conservative, my primary political and philosophical allegiance is -- must be -- to the Constitution, not to free market economic theory.

The problem with assigning to the employer the responsibility for an individual's well being is that the employer can and will refuse to accept, and the heavier the burden, the more likely it is that the employer will refuse to accept. The same is true of the willingness to accept responsibility by the family, the society, and the individual himself. It does seem to me that of the possible choices, assigning responsibility to the individual is the least likely to fail as the individual has the most to lose by failing to accept. We should start from that - build from that.

This is not that hard.

The workforce includes any number of workers who could be replaced by machines or changes or processes, but who keep their jobs because it's marginally cheaper than using the substitute.

Increasing minimum wages forces rational employers to reevaluate labor alternatives.

It would be ridiculous to hold that no jobs will be lost in the process -- just as ridiculous and intellectually dishonest as it is to say that "minimum wage workers have not had a raise in ten years." I challenge you useful idiot liberals to find someone who's been working minimum wage for ten years who doesn't already qualify for some sort of assistance.

The liberal mantra includes the assertion that "higher wages attract better workers." Do any of you liberals believe such poppycock?

Let's just go back to child labor and sweat shops - they must be the most efficient means of transferring labor to capital.

"The flagman was likely a unionized government employee. If that's the case, I would wager that the flagman was paid a multiple of the minimum wage."

Unlikely. Most highway construction is done by private contractors, and those contractors usually hire teenagers to be flag-persons. That's the way it was when I was in high school.

Sorry, Steve W: let me be more obvious. The US Constitution says that private property must not be taken for public use without due compensation. They mean land, of course. However, the principle -- that individuals must be not sacrificed for the group -- applies in spades to the minimum wage law. Identify the people who lose their jobs because of it, and put them on the dole. That is the only fair thing to do.

Of course, I agree with you that that is probably impossible to do. Thus in the interests of social justice, minimum wage laws must be abolished.

Steven W: you should try reading the US Constitution some time. You'll find it an entertaining piece of fiction -- fiction because very few people seemingly yourself included, believes that the federal government should be constrained anymore.

My friend spoke in favor of minimum wage laws.

I asked him if I agreed to work for him for $3.50 per hour, who elses business was it?

He replied: "Nobody's".

I rest my case.

"It hardly proves that minimum wage laws, per se, have a net negative effect on the economy (even if they do cause unemployment for some workers) or are otherwise unjust."

I do not see why you are choosing winners and losers. Why invoke utilitarianism?

It is not clear to me why individual workers should be sacrificeed for workers as a class.

I was just at Home Depot..

Using the self checkout machine..

not by choice...

the lines with cashiers all had long lines

minimum wage laws will increase the "self serve" aspects of our lives..

Steven,

I don't think that you'd find too many people so far out on the fringe that would advocate eliminating taxation altogether. Some government provided services are needed (i.e. an armed force, representatives at all levels, court justices at all levels, law enforcement officers) and are spelled out in consitutions. However, you be silly to argue that taxation, as it is now, is ideal for society...the system is broken and public choice is a good place to start for an explanation as to why it's broken.

I have made one suggestion, many times over, that I think could fix this problem but so far, no one seems to side with me. My idea of a fix is to have the federal government bill each state for its estimated portion of federally provided services -- using three agreed apon pieces of proportional criteria to determine the states' tax for each service federally provided. Those criteria would be: median income, population, and physical size of the states' land mass (minus federal land) in square miles. Not long after making such a change, I'd imagine, you would have state constituients, through their representatives, clamoring for a reduction of services OR be willing to take on some of the currently federally provided services and move them over to the state, having those services provided by the state to avoid the bill.

John Dewey: "Owners of many small businesses will suffer."

Understood. But as another poster mentioned recently, that should be the focus. So let's start trotting out the anecdotal evidence.

"If the ultimate effect is that this group does harm to itself, then seriously, who cares?"

Is it just the minimum wage earners who are hurt? Owners of many small businesses will suffer. Some may be forced to close the business. Others will suffer reduced profits if they're forced to reduced hours of operation or end some services.

What's genuinely stupid is that many who work right now for less than $6.00 an hour do so by choice. My bookstore employees could earn more bagging groceries or making burgers. But they'd rather deal with literate customers in the slow-paced environment of a bookstore.

Not sure if this will be changed, but small businesses with less than $500,000 in revenue re exempt from minimum wage laws. Why should a law treat a $600,000 business different from the $300,000 business next door?

"Instead of the traditional (minimum wage) flagman at each end of this stretch, there was just a single solar-powered traffic light that gave each direction green for about 30 seconds at a time - 24 hours a day.

The low skilled jobs that pay minimum are certainly very susceptible to relatively simple technology."

The flagman was likely a unionized government employee. If that's the case, I would wager that the flagman was paid a multiple of the minimum wage.

It occurs to me that arguments showing the damage done by the minimum wage are rather useless. The minimum wage is about a group of people using force to get its way. If the ultimate effect is that this group does harm to itself, then seriously, who cares?

Steven M. Warshawsky: "The extremist, knee-jerk libertarianism so often promoted by this website is completely untenable, philsophically and politically"

"it makes you feel good to believe in the logical superiority of a point of view that is a meaningless blip in the American public policy scene."

Are you sure you really understand the libertarian positions? Here's the libertarian positions on a number of issues that I don't believe to be a "meaningless blip on the American public policy scene":

1. repeal of laws that presume government knows better than individuals how to run their lives;

2. repeal of laws that prevent freedom of speech, especially the recently enacted campaign finance laws;

3. reverse laws and decisions that violate the right to property, such as eminent domain authorized by Kelo v. City of New London;

4. preserve the right to bear arms;

5. remove governmental authority to define or license personal relationships, and make no laws that discriminate based on one's sexual orientation or gender;

6. end corporate welfare;

7. end government-mandated service monopolies, especially the USPS monopoly;

8. repeal victimless crime laws;

9. make no laws that restrict a person's right to trade with anyone, foreign or domestic.

I'm sure there are many other libertarian positions I've forgotten. I also know that many libertarians believe these to be general and not absolute positions. Some believe, for example, that government has a right to restrict trade with enemies of the U.S., such as terroists.

Do you honestly feel these positions held by most libertarians represent a "mere blip"?

I can assure you that Ron Paul is not the only congressman who believes in the general libertarian view. Even if those who hold the libertarian view are never elected to national office, they have and continue to influence national policy.

Don, I think your point is good, but the example is a little off target since the billboard workers were probably paid well above minimum wage.

Let me offer another:

Several years ago US Highway 1 was undergoing repairs near the Florida-Georgia line. It's a rather low traffic area as most drivers take nearby I-95 and only one lane was open for about 100 yards. Instead of the traditional (minimum wage) flagman at each end of this stretch, there was just a single solar-powered traffic light that gave each direction green for about 30 seconds at a time - 24 hours a day.

The low skilled jobs that pay minimum are certainly very susceptible to relatively simple technology.

Russell Nelson: "Social justice demands it."

Good argument.

Steven M. Warshawsky: "...such a principle would render essentially all taxation unjust because government services of any type will *never* benefit people in direct proportion to the amount they pay in taxes."

True, but that doesn't mean that the involuntary component of taxation is just. I would say that the government with the highest practical degree of voluntary participation is the best, and that there are many government programs which could and should be voluntary (e.g., Social Security, Medicare, and if it comes, National Health insurance). As a majority of the population (100 plus million people) seems to believe that these programs are a good deal, I see no reason why the other 100 plus million should be forced to participate. Surely 100 million participants is more than enough to create an excellent insurance plan.

Good question, Richard.

I visit this blog because I find the issues and debates very interesting, and they help me hone my own ideas. Sometimes people on the blog offer arguments or data that make me think twice and revise my own thoughts. Libertarian insights certaintly are useful. I agree with many of them. I just don't think they go as far as their proponents think.

But, yes, orthodox libertarianism is not much of a political force in this country. Very few "libertarian" positions have any hope of carrying the day politically. But argued effectively, they can influence the major political players and perhaps move the country towards greater economic freedom in many areas. It's a continuum. And a question of choosing the right battles.

Hey Steven,

If Libertarian ideas have only "a meaningless blip in the American public policy scene", then why are you wasting your time posting in one proponent's forum? Sounds like you aren't representing your true feelings here.

@Brad

I think the point of this post is that the argument for minimum wage that jobs must be done by people and therefore jobs which pay minimum wage won't go away from a minimum wage increase is false.

In fact, many minimum wage jobs done by people get replaced by capital because a machine plus maintenance costs comes to cost less than hiring the workers to do the original job.

-----

We still need people to build the capital, put the new system in place and make sure it continues to operate so it's hardly taking away someone's job but it's more efficient than keeping the old system in place given the force of the minimum wage.

If the minimum wage (in this example) weren't increased or if it didn't exist then the capital/labor ratio as well as nominal values would reflect the state of voluntary choices rather than legislated choices.

Russell,

The principles you espouse beg a lot of questions. For one, what do you mean by "private property"?

It seems to me that money qualifies as private property. So do you oppose any form of taxation that results in the taxpayer not receiving a benefit ("due compensation") equivalent to the amount he pays in taxes? (How else do you define "due compensation"?)

Besides the obvious impracticality, even impossibility, of performing such calculations, such a principle would render essentially all taxation unjust because government services of any type will *never* benefit people in direct proportion to the amount they pay in taxes. Certainly not under any form of government that could possibly exist in the real world.

Unless I am misunderstanding your position, I stick to my original point. Extremist libertarianism is a non-starter.

It's injust for the government to take private property for public gain without due compensation. Similarly, there should be no minimum wage law without due compensation for those whose livelihoods are destroyed. Social justice demands it.

I taught high school science and math for a bit, and the way I would explain the differing views on economics, and why some people can simply not see or understand sound economics, is that they see the world in a snapshot.

Good economics, or a good view, requires a moving picture or perhaps an extremely wide scope in order to see the unintended consequences, etc.

Here in Arizona, we just passed a min wage law that by the letter of the law, is going to put a number of mentally handicapped people out of work. The center that employed them made an emotional case for them in the local paper, and they're figuring some way to get around the law.

Nice.

And your point is? That there should be no minimum wage legislation at all? This is a non sequitur. The billboard example simply reflects technological innovation. It hardly proves that minimum wage laws, per se, have a net negative effect on the economy (even if they do cause unemployment for some workers) or are otherwise unjust. I realize this is free market gospel, but the empirical and ethical basis for this position is far from compelling.

How about workplace safety rules? Do you favor *any* such rules? Or should workers be allowed to "contract" "freely" with employers to work in any kind of work environment? At a minimum, surely you would require employers to "fully disclose" all known and knowable risks that exist in the workplace, right? After all, an individual cannot bargain effectively in a state of ignorance, can he? Or is even this degree of government "intrusion" into the marketplace forbidden?

The extremist, knee-jerk libertarianism so often promoted by this website is completely untenable, philsophically and politically. I guess it makes you feel good to believe in the logical superiority of a point of view that is a meaningless blip in the American public policy scene.

Wouldn't advocates of greater free enterprise be better served by taking less extreme positions and arguing in realistic, incremental terms? Why let the "perfect" be the enemy of the good?

I used to favor the min. wage when I was a teenager, and the "must be done" argument was a particular favorite of mine.