Milton Friedman on Minimum Wage

Since the market provides more than ample protection against the payment of so-called "starvation wages",

exactily what are those prorections?

The fact is that, contrary to urban mythology, workers have sufficent power in the marketplace to prevent the payment of mere starvation wages. Employers must compete in the marketplace for the best workers. If they do not pay enough, those workers will be attracted to companies who can pay them a more and still make a return and the first company will fail. The primary determinant of wage rates is the marginal return (the actual value contributed) of the worker himself.

defnatily workers can go to another place but ONLY!!! if the economy has jobs for them

Granted, but capitalism does not create situations where the economy is lacking for jobs. Unemployment is caused by one of two things: 1) wage rates set at levels above market either via minimum wage laws or state created monopoly power for unions or 2) failed government policies such as wars, economic interventions and manipulation of the money supply that causes "bust" periods like we are currently experiencing. Government failure is not the fault of capitalism.

Well maybe your right, because if you work at a factory your wage is much higher than the minimum wage. The real question is where do you stand on the unions and trade, because although I feel there destroying America they were involved in creating the middle class. And I kinda support a Ross Perot trade like system where you make them follow some of our requirements or else we'll put a hire tax on them. Just because I feel it's a good business deal.

I am an advocate of liberty so I have no problem with people joining unions, just the granting of monoploy power (i.e., closed shop laws) by govt. They did not, however, do anything to create the middle class. Nothing they lay claim to providing was not offered by the private sector in order to obtain the best workers. It's no accident that, at one time, the only steel mill with an 8 hour day (not te mention health care and a school) was one of the few non-union shops.

Sadly, Perot was misguided. Tariffs and restrictions on foreign trade serve only to penalize American consumers. If Japan wishes to levy higher taxes on ots people so that we can get cheaper cars, it doesn't harm OUR economy. We get the cheaper cars plus the other goods that the add'l money can buy and this added efficiency creates jobs for Americans - not in the auto industry but elsewhere - and more than may be lost in the auto industry in that example.

Well I think we can both agree that we have to make America more competitive by going to a Fair Tax,property rights,drilling offshore,going back to a Gold Standard,letting local government control public schooling to train factory worker, and healthcare reform through Republican and Libertarian ideas. Yet our Constitution allows us to have restrictions on trade. So I don't know why we just can't use that in a Ross Perot man.And other countries will go along, because we're there biggest customer.

There is much room for agreement (particularly with the call for a return to commodity money and the end to devaluing the currency). Certainly, the Constitution permits the levying of tariffs and as an alternative revenue generating measure they have their merits, but as a protectionist measure they are a disaster. The Bush steel tariffs, for example, saved a handful of jobs, breifly, in the steel industry, at the cost of a much greater number of jobs in the industries using finished steel.

Well my problem with the current trade system is that were getting screwed by other countries. Now I really don't think of what I want to do as a protectionist measure, but as a way for people in other countries to purchase are goods. The whole point of trade was to spread new ideas and make it so people in other countries can purchase your protect. There paid so little in other countries they can't afford to purchase our goods when are workers here making the same product can.