Originally Posted By: sini
Derid, have you ever consider that minimum wage could be influenced by something else other than market forces? That is, could you imagine a scenario where something, say a power differential or monopoly of some sorts, could create a situation where highly replaceable worker's wages are suppressed?



Considered? Sure. Observed? Nope. Note your own term "highly replaceable". That right there is an indicator that there is too much supply, not enough demand.

You have brought up this concept before, and I confess it is not a factor I can say I observe to a degree that its consideration outweighs other factors. You should probably link me the origin sometime so I can read it myself. I see how someone could come to such a theory, but as of right now I see it as a restatement of the simple too much supply/demand.

--

As to your other two questions, I would rather assert that the you are trying to solve the wrong problem. Focusing on side effects of the primary economic problems are temporary fixes.

If it was possible to enact an economic paradigm that would organically result in close to full employment, thereby raising thee value of labor and raising barriers to worker replacement driving wages up - would you say that this is a better or worse solution than stepping in and forcing businesses in a sick economy that they have to pay "x" now minimum per employee?

Its really not that I think people should be poor, or enjoy the poverty of others. I doubt that anyone here feels that way. I do worry that enacting measures that temporarily mask the fundamental problems, and allow society the temporary luxury of procrastinating in dealing with the core issues can be dangerous - even as I worry how effective the temporary measures will even be.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)