SL-Mark:I'm sure his post was meant as sarcasm.

Bwild:
Yes, I just managed to pick up on that, though he was using it (sarcasm) to argue for the minimum wage. Also doesn't change the fact that his arguement was poorly structured, sarcasm or not! Quite unusual for Ubergeek, whos posts are often some of the best and always well constructed and thought through.

SL-Mark:

Unfortunately, a sarcastic tone cannot be written down and only implied in typing. Of course, you are saying that increases in minimum wage are bad for the economy, competitiveness, etc.

If that is the case, I am sure there is econometric data to support that argument. Show me statistical data that shows that increases in the minimum wage have led to a decline in economic growth. There should be a graph that shows the correlation. Hard data, not some regurgitated "free market" economics.

> "These people you speak of took risk, provided opportunity to many and improved life for all."

Adam Smith might have spoken of the "invisible hand". That was nice of him and the rich in Scotland liked it as they amassed their wealth using women and children in textile factories in Scotland. Capitalists do things not for the benefit of others, but for the benefit of their own pockets. The only reason why capitalists ship jobs overseas is because profits are greatest when the labour is cheapest. That is why right wing economists hate the minimum wage. Higher minimum wage means lower profits for the capitalist class.

> "Look at any old city and ask yourself who built those magnificent houses, art galleries, theatres, universities, museums, railways, etc. etc. It was not government. "

No, it was not the government. It was not the church or the aristocracy or the rich. All those nice buildings were built with working class hands. It was workers who set mortar to stone and who carved wood and marble. It was also the work of the working class that generated the wealth used to build those places. The rich and the church merely took that wealth and used it to build those monuments for themselves.

You say that antiques are highly sought after. That is because even when there was no minimum wage people were skilled and worked hard. The argument that minimum wage increases discourages people from working hard or being skilled is an empty argument. Nobody can prove that with hard science or hard statistical data.

Today we have a minimum wage. Are we more or less skilled today than we were in the 19th century? We have technical developments like computers and cell phones, but then, in the past people built things by hand and made all those antiques.

The minimum wage might change, but human need and human skill remain the same. It is all a matter of how technical development modifies the necessary skills that satisfy human need. You can make a wooden chair by hand, or with computerized power tools.

If decreases in minimum wage lead to greater competitiveness and a more skilled labour force, then countires with the lowest minimum wages would have the most skilled and most competitive labour market.

But the economic reality proves otherwise. The lower the income of people in a country, the less competitive and the less skilled its labour becomes. If people have a very low minimum income, then they cannot afford to be educated. That means that their skill set will be lower because skills are learned, and it is education that teaches people those skills. Low minimum wages means a less skilled labour force.

The reason why right wing economists say that higher wages are "less competitive" is because the capitalist class wants to pay the lowest possible wages for the same work. China's labour market is "more competitive" than the labour market of the USA because in China goods are manufactured by paying workers approximately 1/30th of what the average American worker earns. China is more "competitive" because the capitalist class has no problems at all shipping its production there and making much bigger profits by paying less in salaries. What you call "competitive market liquidity" is no more than cheap labour.

Übergeek 바둑이: Firstly, thank you for taking the time to answer in a way more becoming of you. It demonstrates a bit more respect than a sarcastic jibe.

>”Show me statistical data that shows that increases in the minimum wage have led to a decline in economic growth..”
In making such a request, I would have at least expected the courtesy that you provided some of your own statistical data to back your argument first. Overlooking this, let me point you to some modern day examples such as Hong Kong, Ethiopia, India. Even Ireland in its latest austerity budget actually reduced the statutory minimum wage, recognising the fact it is a hindrance to growth. In fact, all (informed) governments recognise this, however, they seek to gain political popularity through such measures to the detriment of the nation.

>”Adam Smith might have spoken of the "invisible hand". That was nice of him and the rich in Scotland liked it as they amassed their wealth using women and children in textile factories in Scotland. Capitalists do things not for the benefit of others, but for the benefit of their own pockets. The only reason why capitalists ship jobs overseas is because profits are greatest when the labour is cheapest. That is why right wing economists hate the minimum wage. Higher minimum wage means lower profits for the capitalist class.”
I see you have used an example from my country :)
The women and children you talk about were part of a mass migration of labour from subsistence farming to the cities, where opportunities to work and better themselves existed. They were able to afford better food, clothing, medicine and even basic education, all of which was previously non-existent to them. The capitalists certainly benefited from that, and so they should, but so did all their workers.

>”No, it was not the government. It was not the church or the aristocracy or the rich. All those nice buildings were built with working class hands. It was workers who set mortar to stone and who carved wood and marble. It was also the work of the working class that generated the wealth used to build those places. The rich and the church merely took that wealth and used it to build those monuments for themselves.”
Yes, I agree, they were built by the hands of workers who migrated from all over the country to carry out such work. Unskilled labourers, stone masons, carpenters, engineers, architects, etc. all paid for by private money for the benefit and good of all. This private money came about from enterprise, from these greedy capitalists!

>”You say that antiques are highly sought after. That is because even when there was no minimum wage people were skilled and worked hard. The argument that minimum wage increases discourages people from working hard or being skilled is an empty argument. Nobody can prove that with hard science or hard statistical data.”
Although I disagree, I will accept your assertion. However, I maintain that the minimum wage does effect the supply and demand for labour in a way that causes greater unemployment. This fact is irrefutable if you care to do a bit of research.

>”Today we have a minimum wage. Are we more or less skilled today than we were in the 19th century? We have technical developments like computers and cell phones, but then, in the past people built things by hand and made all those antiques.”
Not clear on what point you are trying to make. We are as skilled, but in different ways. The minimum wage effects mostly the unskilled and semi-skilled workers. The minimum wage is dysfunctional to the market, the economy and the wealth of a nation and its people.

>”If decreases in minimum wage lead to greater competitiveness and a more skilled labour force, then countires with the lowest minimum wages would have the most skilled and most competitive labour market.”
Yes, this is true and as the Western economies shoot themselves in the foot with these social polices which hurt competitiveness, we can see other nations now starting to overtake on the huge head start we had. This head start of course achieved through minimal intervention in business and the economy.

>”But the economic reality proves otherwise. The lower the income of people in a country, the less competitive and the less skilled its labour becomes. If people have a very low minimum income, then they cannot afford to be educated. That means that their skill set will be lower because skills are learned, and it is education that teaches people those skills. Low minimum wages means a less skilled labour force.”
Now we are discussing factor endowment of nations and the national policies of these governments. Hong Kong, Ethiopia, Bangladesh are good examples of nations breaking the downward spiral of poverty. Indeed, it was not so long ago that the UK was exactly as you describe, and in only the space of 200-300 years has it developed to what we see today. Hong Kong is an example of subsistence living to 'modern' living in less than 50 years.

The reason why right wing economists say that higher wages are "less competitive" is because the capitalist class wants to pay the lowest possible wages for the same work. China's labour market is "more competitive" than the labour market of the USA because in China goods are manufactured by paying workers approximately 1/30th of what the average American worker earns. China is more "competitive" because the capitalist class has no problems at all shipping its production there and making much bigger profits by paying less in salaries. What you call "competitive market liquidity" is no more than cheap labour.”
Yes and look how China has progressed in the last 20 years.
Please watch this video, and compare it to the productivity of your country
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogQRjGGxkZQ
I find this not only amazing, but very upsetting as we kill our economies on the false social benefits that we desire. I am not asserting that the minimum wage is the result of the disparity in productivity, but it is one of the many contributing factors.