"The Latest Liberal Crusade"
Thomas Sowell explains in simple and easy to understand terms why the concern with Wal-Mart and its pay policies are misplaced. I like this penultimate paragraph:
- "It would be devastating to the egos of the intelligentsia to realize, much less admit, that businesses have done more to reduce poverty than all the intellectuals put together. Ultimately it is only wealth that can reduce poverty and most of the itelligentsia have no interest whatever in finding out what actions and policies increase the national wealth."
A challange to any readers: point to any misstatement or illogic in this article and explain why it is not true or logical. I don't see anything but truth!
posted by Jim | 7:55 AM
5 Comments:
I have to say I'm in agreement on this one. As long as Walmart is not violating any laws with regard to pay, I think it's up to the company to determine the level of pay, and workers can take it or leave.
(Interestingly, I read one analysis of Walmart that indicated that in fact most of the economic benefits created by the company seemed to be going to consumers rather than shareholders in recent years)
Glad to see you agree with Mr. Sowell!
How do you justify Minimum Wage Laws with your statement? Shouldn't the "market" (Wal-Mart)determine the level of pay, and workers can take it or leave it.
I have not studied the Minimum Wage issue in enough detail to have made up my mind.
The Henry Ford story comes to mind; he decided to raise the pay of his workers so they could afford his cars (not, apparently, because he felt he had to in order to keep them). For any individual employer there is (usually) a clear motivation to minimize labor costs. Yet in in the 'big picture' I think there is a benefit to the economy to have every employed person making a certain level of income.
Another way to look at it; I suspect that most 'first world' countries have some sort of minimum wage in effect, while 'third world' countries probably don't. There are many differences between the countries, but I have to wonder about whether the minimum wage plays a role in keeping an economy at an advanced level? I realize there is a cost or inefficiency to minimum wage, but I think there is offsetting benefit that is not well understood.
Henry Ford was not the Govenment.
Wouldn't it make much more sense for the market to set the wages rather than Government, just as it makes sense for WalMart to set wages rather than the Government?
Since Minimum Wage legislation has become part of the First World, our economies are growing at a much lower rate than the industrialized Third World Countries. Could Minimum Wage legislation have something to do with that?
A few comments:
1. As I said, I'm no expert, and I have not made up mind.
2. For the most part, the market does set wage levels, just not at the bottom (my quick research indicates that about 6% of the workforce work at minimum wage).
3. I don't buy the argument that the minimum wage drives wages up across the board. And since there's so much resistance to raising the minimum, its effect is lessening. So I'm doubtful that it has a huge impact on overall economic growth.
Post a Comment
<< Home