Not disputed but there is a fundamental difference between offering a critique specifics and providing a complete dissertation on the "natural (inalienable) right of property" and no one has offered that except Locke. No one has put forward the complete argument for the "natural (inalienable) rights of property" that Locke has done. When I've read the critiques the arguments have always been based upon "statutory title of ownership" that argue the "owner of enterprise" will benefit by screwing the worker. They're arguments on how the enterprise, not the worker, benefits from the "Divine Right of Kings" in an economy. The position that some have offered "critiques" is, by analogy, the same as creationists arguing the specifics of the theory of natural selection as the mechanism that results evolution. The creationists don't offer a "theory of evolution" but like to take pot-shots at Darwin's theory of natural selection (and, of course, they're wrong).
I'm not sure you understand my point. Let's say that there is a person working for an employer who is being paid $8.00/hour. He is being paid this because the employer considers his contribution to the bottom line to be worth that wage. He's not currently being paid $9.00/hour because the employer doesn't consider his contribution to the bottom line to be worth that much. So now, let's say that the minimum wage is raised to $9.00. This does not suddenly make the $8.00/hour employees contribution to the bottom line any higher. He is still, as before, contributing $8.00 to that bottom line. This means that the employer loses $1.00/hour, which obviously means that the employer cannot continue to employ this worker, and the minimum wage will result in his unemployment.
The fact someone has the only theory about something does not make that theory valid. Previously the only theory about the shape of the earth was that the earth was flat. That was dead wrong. Furthermore, you are wrong there are no other theories that explain the right to property. Nearly all of the scholars I listed have lengthy treatises that answer the question. Others (who I disagree with) deny property rights exist at all. Regardless, whether those theories exist or not does not change the fact that Locke's theory is full of holes. Further, none of them have anything to do with the Divine Right of Kings, so I have no idea why you keep bringing that nonsense up. Again, your entire argument is just a blind-faith assumption Locke's theory is right. That is not a valid argument in the slightest.
Individuals like Rothbard and Hayak proposed economic theories and not theories based upon the "Natural Rights" of the person, Their economic theories are based upon statutory ownership by (legal) title of property that has nothing whatsoever to do with the "Natural Right of Property" as established by Locke. When we address the "Natural Rights" of mankind the three foremost scholars are Thomas Hobbes, Thomas Paine, and John Locke but of the three the one that specifically addressed the "Natural Rights" of mankind was Locke while Hobbes and Paine basically refer to Locke's arguments in addressing the "social contract" necessary for the protection of the "natural rights" of mankind. But let us disregard this issue and just focus on the issue of "contract" as it relates to employment because there is an "employment contract" that exists between the employer and the employee. Under contract law a contract is invalidated if there is coercion (i.e. harm or threats of harm) involved in the creation of the contract. A person that is unemployed and must work to provide for their household is under a "threat of greater harm" if they refuse an unfair employment contract that does not provide adequate compensation for them to "provide for their household" through their labor. While they are harmed by the employment contract that doesn't provide for their necessities they face even greater harm if they refuse to accept it. The fact that they might have hunderds of employers that are willing to undercompensate them for their labor does not negated the fact that they are forced into accepting an employment contract to prevent greater harm to their household if they refuse. The employment contract in these cases represents asymmetry where the employer does not have to employ the person but the person must accept the employment. It is this asymmetry in the employment contract, where the prospective employee is forced out of desperation (i.e. an act of coercion) to accept the contract, that is a fundamental flaw of capitalism that results in poverty. Economic theorists like Rothbard and Hayak ignore the coercion inherent in the employment contract which is a violation of the fundamental principles of contract. If there is coercion in the creation of the contract then the contract is illegal under contract law.
There is a fundamental flaw in this logic because the employee's contribution typically results if four times the revenue to the enterprise than the compensation paid to the employee. The typical business plan allocates about 25% (between 20% and 30%) of gross revenue to employee compensation. While there are other expenditures that contribute to the gross revenue, such as the purchase of inventory, without the employee these expenditures become moot as it's the employee that provides the means for the sales that generate the gross revenue. For example a McDonalds franchise purchases the meat, buns, and other components of the hamburger but without the burger flipper and the sales clerk there is no sale and no revenue. So if we refer to an $8/hr burger flipper that employee is actually generating at least $32/hr in revenue to the business owner. The value to the enterprise of each employee is really $32/hr because that's how much revenue the labor of the employee generates. From that value other overhead costs need to be deducted but predominately those costs exist (e.g. rent, untilities, etc. but excluding the cost of the goods that wouldn't be sold) regardless of whether the employee exists or doesn't exist. But wait, that's not all, because the "burger flipper" is the only person literally creating "value" but they require a person at the counter the burger flipper has to create $64 in product to pay for the labor of the clerk at the counter. That is not to say that the employer isn't entitled to "profit" based upon their capital investment. Based upon the historic "value of money" that profit would be about 5% or about $1.60/hr based upon the labor of the employee. Of course if the owner is also working at the enterprise then they become a "labor cost" and for every dollar in compensation they receive then the actual workers have to generate more income to the enterprise. At the same time the employers "money and labor" are at risk but that's their problem and not the problem of the employee. The employer mitigates the risk by having a viable business (and marketing) plan. Based upon a really good business and marketing plan the owner of the enterprise can generate a large income based upon 5% roi for their capital investments and the time they spend working as an employee of the enterprise but they shouldn't be screwing the employees to accomplish this because it's the employee, generating many times the amount of revenue they receive in compensation (i.e. providing value to the enterprise), that makes all of this income possible.
I don't think you understand my point. It the marginal revenue product of a worker is $8.00, no employer will employ him for more than $8.00. Thus, raising the minimum wage to $9.00 will result in his unemployment.
As currently enforced by the courts this is relatively accurate but there is a fundamental flaw in this argument that I can establish by analogy. At one time the Mafia extorted protection money from the local businesses in the Italian communities and it created a contract (i.e. the business paid a percentage of income to the Mafia for protection). Here's the problem we face. It the Mafia simply protected the business from the street gangs then this was a "legal contract" because the Mafia wasn't threatening the business with any harm but if the Mafia literally threatened to harm the business itself then it was an "ilegal contract" because of the direct threat of harm. What is being ignored is that the Mafia was dependent upon the street gangs causing harm to any business that refused to submit to the extortion. In fact the Mafia often worked with the street gangs which gave the Mafia indirect power over them. The Chinese faced the same problem with the Tong that worked losely with the Chinese street gangs and extorted money from the Chinese business owners. It was still coercion that resulted in extortion based upon the threat of harm regardless of whether the Mafia or the Tong was the actual instrument of the threat of harm to the business owners. This "coercion" should have resulted in an "illegal contract" in all cases regardless of whether the threat was direct or indirect because coercion still existed and was being exploited for financial profit by the Mafia and the Tong that used the threat of harm to the business owners to extort a part of their income. Pay the "tribute" to the Mafia (or Tong) or suffer the harm if you don't. Of interest I believe this form of extortion was illegal under the law even when the Mafia or Tong didn't directly threaten to commit any act of harm against the enterprise and it should have been because the "threat of harm" represented coercion that would invalidate any "legal" contract between the business owner and the Mafia or Tong. So why aren't we applying the identical principle related to employment where the person is threatened with financial ruin of they refuse employment that doesn't provide for their basic support and comfort?
Personally, I don't know how anyone in America can live on less than $125.00 per hour. Let's make that the minimum wage, if minimum wages help the poor and middle class. Or, why not eliminate income taxes for a year or a decade since the gub'mint can print all the money it needs to operate?
A protection racket is extortion: "Pay us or else we (or our associates) will initiate aggression against you or your property." You analogy does not hold, since an employer threatens no such acts of aggression.
Ok? If history is any indicator. employers will pay their workers as little as possible when possible. Since the motivation is profit, this is the expected and rational result. .No one is suggesting reducing the minimum, quite the contrary actually. Labor is a competitive market, if I can pay someone less I will... In either case, your point doesn't stand up to scrutiny since productivity has radically outpaced compensation. A lot. A person looking for a job isn't at all like a pack of chips on the shelf. If the job seeker were aware of every job, what it pays and could move to it with no costs then you could treat it like any other market. That's not reality though. Their productive value may be far more than the MW, but they'll never be compensated for that.
I am suggesting it be lowered. To $0.00. Yes, labor is a competitive market. If an employer could pay $0.00 he would. If he could pay everyone minimum wage, he would. But he can't, because labor is a competitive market. Other employers are bidding for those same workers. If we see a worker currently being paid at least $0.01 over minimum wage, that is the least his current employer can currently pay him and have him not leave for another employer. All current employees have managed to find a job at which their marginal revenue product warrants their employer paying them at or above minimum wage. Despite the fact that these workers are not bags of chips, the reality is that they were able to somehow find these jobs. Lowering the minimum wage would not change the marginal revenue product of these workers.
It's utterly unsurprising that you're the only one with that opinion... well there may be a few more radicals out there, but no one that takes the economy seriously has suggested any such thing. Not like a bag of chips, people aren't homogeneous and interchangeable and job seekers are quite far from having perfect information. Dumbing down the labor market and treating it like a market for any other commodity is the root of your error. You're right that there are jobs that are more competitive than others, but being competitive and being compensated at the MW+.01 doesn't mean they're being paid for their full productive value.
If an employee is being paid MW+.01, then the elimination of minimum wage would not effect him. The minimum wage is irrelevant to him, because he is already worth more to him employer than the minimum wage. If an employee is being paid MW + .01 and the minimum wage is raised by $1.00, then that employer will no longer be viable and will lose his job. The minimum wage harms him. Minimum wage hurts low productivity workers by rendering them unemployable. Personally, I'd rather allow someone to work for whatever he's worth than to force him to be unemployed.
Sure, and me removing a dam upstream will have no impact on you. Maybe in your world things happen in a vacuum, but that's not reality. An opinion completely unsupported by the evidence.
If a person is making MW+.01, please explain how elimination of the MW would affect him. An employer won't pay more than the employee contributes to the bottom line. If the employee can contribute $5 to the bottom line, but the employer is required to pay him $6, the employer will not lose $1 to hire the employee.
However, if the employee can contribute $500 to the bottom line, but the employer can pay him $2, the employer will do it.
Sure. If the employer could pay the employee $0.00, he would do so. If you could buy a house for $0.00 you would do so. But you can't and the employer can't, because other people will bid more for such a valuable resource.
You're setting up a straw man with zero, lets stick with $2. The problem is the unequal bargaining position. There may be several people who could fulfill the role that would earn the employer $500. They would be bidding against each other to offer the lowest pay. That would result in the lowest cost to the employer but that doesn't mean he's going to hire 3 people. The existing role is fulfilled and further roles require increased market. But wait a moment! The employees ARE the market, and they don't have so much money thanks to their paltry pay. In fact, they can't afford the existing product line anymore. Your solution, I would suppose, is to lower wages again.... so the deflation-recession spiral commences.
No straw man. Just simple economics. If the employer were able, he would pay the employee $0.00. But he's not. Why not?
you have completely missed the point and are insisting on a dumb analogy. $0 is an intellectually poor example because you can't go further down and there is no multiple of 0 other than 0, there is no consideration for the employment contract to be binding and there is no marginal benefit to the potential employee to form the basis of a rational decision. Use zero if you want. What the hell. Have you got the guts and intellectual rigour to address the salient point of my post?
If the employer were able, he would pay the employee $0.01/hour, but he's not. Why not? Your salient point is that employees compete based on (among other things) price. So what? All sellers compete on (among other things) price. Now here's a question: why don't all workers offer to work for $0.01/hour?
No, the salient point is that workers are also the consumers. Who's buying the production if the workers are earning $0.01/hour?
The consumers will buy the product, and the sellers will be in a very unequal bargaining position. There may be several sellers all bidding against each other to offer the lowest price, and, with no minimum prices, it will be a race to the bottom. Prices will plummet to near zero.
The workers aren't making $0.01 per hour. In fact, only about 3% of workers make as low as minimum wage. Why do employers pay 97% of workers more than they need to?
