On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 06:25:49 -0400, "Joseph Catron" <jncatron at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Dmytri Kleiner <dk at telekommunisten.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Now let me know if this is crazy, but more money chasing the same goods
>> and locations means, it seems, higher prices? (especially higher
> rents).
>
> This is the most common neoliberal argument against higher minimum wage
> laws.
Neoliberal??
See "Wages, Iron Law of."
> Its most obvious flaw is that the minimum wage, like the Earned Income
> Tax Credit, gives more money primarily to one class, and not the class
> which, in a plutonomy like our own, drives the consumer and housing
> markets.
Minimum wage earners _do not_ compete for the same goods and locations as other classes or even higher wage earners, only with social assistance recipients.
Location rents are very, umm, local.
> Perhaps Doug and others will argue that this is fallacious, and that
> ANY public benefit is an indirect subsidy to employers, but until they
> mount serous arguments that we should discount ALL public benefits
> which might save a boss somewhere the odd buck, in favor of
> concessions extracted from those same employers, I'll be hard-pressed
> to take them seriously.
Dont get me wrong, I am not in favour of eliminating anything that is has a positive impact on wages, as any loss in wages would certainly not help.
Only pointing out that a focus on nominal net wages will not really change the level of wealth, let alone the balance of political power.
-- Dmytri Kleiner editing text files since 1981
http://www.telekommunisten.net