Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site tty3b.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ltuxa!tty3b!mjk From: mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Unemployment & the minimum wage Message-ID: <461@tty3b.UUCP> Date: Thu, 9-Aug-84 13:40:15 EDT Article-I.D.: tty3b.461 Posted: Thu Aug 9 13:40:15 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 10-Aug-84 02:19:36 EDT References: <1665@inmet.UUCP> <451@tty3b.UUCP>, <388@pucc-i> Organization: Teletype Corp., Skokie, Ill Lines: 70 >From: ags@pucc-i (Seaman) >It is nice of you to offer to decide for other people which jobs are >worth having, but don't you think some people might like to make that >choice for themselves? How would you feel if the minimum wage were >suddenly changed to an amount substantially more than you make, with >the result that you found yourself out of a job? (a) I am not deciding for anyone; the Congress has passed this law and working people are not mobilizing to oppose it. Perhaps you believe that people should have the "freedom" to "choose" slavery, or the "freedom" to buy unsafe products -- that's a common libertarian line. It's not my concept of freedom. If there are people dying for the "freedom" to take a job at sub-minimum wages, to me that just reflects the utter desperation to which unemployed people have been driven. Also an interesting contrast with Reagan's idea that none of those people want to work anyway. (b) Your second question only points out the inadequacy of the minimum wage to really solve the problem of unemployment. That doesn't mean we should abandon the minimum wage. It means we must go further. Certainly if capital has the ability to move across borders without abandon, and if dictatorships that oppress trade union organizing are around, there will be low-wage havens ("a good labor market", in the corporate lingo). The question is whether we should allow the world wage to float to the lowest level (which is the current trend) or try to counteract that and maintain a high world wage. That would take some work. One thing it takes is restrictions on the ability of corporations to just pick up and leave at will. That doesn't mean preventing them from leaving. It just means having them to consider the costs of leaving and factor those into the decision. For example, U.S. Steel is about to abandon its South Works plant in Chicago. Doing so will put a few thousand people on the unemployment rolls; that's a cost, but one borne by the community. U.S. Steel should take that cost into account. Businesses around South Works will go under in the shockwaves; that's a cost that should be taken into account. Perhaps after taking these costs into account, it will turn out that abandoning South Works doesn't look so attractive after all. Remember that in many cases the abandoned plants are not losing money; it's just that the low-wage havens are so attractive that the corporados can't stand to stay. "Why pay $9/hour when I can get it in the Phillipines for $3/hour?" The obvious long-range effect of this will be to drive wages in the U.S. down, which means a cut in the standard of living for most Americans. I'm sure no one is really for that; they're just caught up in these myths about the infallibility of corporate decisionmaking. The other side of this, though, is world development. I believe that it is both in our own interests and in the interest of humanity to help other countries with development. One way to do that is to stop supporting dictators that destroy trade unions and stop any effort by average people to better themselves; supporting dictators isn't in the long- range interest of Americans. Another way is to provide development assistance but in appropriate forms. Too often our development assistance is really just a way of creating overseas opportunities for U.S. corporations, not really part of an effort to encourage long- term development. I think we're talking about an effort really directed at long-term development with substantial amounts of money involved. As Willy Brandt, ex-Prime Minister of Germany, has pointed out, we can give it or they will sooner or later take it. A system that involves wide disparities in wealth is not stable. Africa, Asia and South America are not going to put up with that forever, and the threatened repayment boycott is only the first step in a rebellion. Well, I've gotten way off track and given everyone a huge target to shoot at. My basic points, though, are contained in the first two paragraphs. The rest is expansion. Mike Kelly