Skip to main content

A Swing and a Miss: Why the Minimum Wage Law Misses the Mark

It's another swing and a miss for MarketWatch in their latest hit piece labeled Here's why these baseball players may suffer from the $1.3 trillion spending bill



In this modern melodrama of First World proportions, MarketWatch distributes yet another Leftist propaganda piece, lamenting the exemption of minor league baseball players from the federal minimum wage law. 

As it turns out, athletes pursue minor league ball not to get rich, but to prove themselves on the field in hopes of a chance to ascend to the majors and maybe eventually achieve riches. 

In fact, most athletes take a tremendous risk in pursuing their respective sports, working countless hours off the official clock to improve their strength, aptitude and performance. 

Additionally, there are millions of athletes who will never earn a penny through their respective sports, yet they have been motivated by the potential to compete at that level, and they invest their time, money and tireless efforts for that opportunity. 

Of course, if analysts were to calculate the average return on this investment, they would be astounded as they discovered negatives all across the board, as virtually every athlete will pour far more into the endeavor than he or she will ever receive in return through a contract or professional payout of any kind. 

Of course, this quantitative assessment fails to capture the value of pride, camaraderie, experience, social status and the residual benefits of health and fitness, all of which certainly afford the athlete a hefty advantage in the long run, whether monetarily, physiologically or by way of networking. 

This is perhaps the most highly overlooked consequence of the minimum wage law: a measure which interprets individuals as static subjects, effectively raising the bar for lawful employment and legislatively preventing laborers from exercising their own powers of discretion and freedom to contract to then artificially define the standard under which an employee cannot legally work and acquire the on-the-job skills and training to eventually scale the professional ranks. 

Ultimately, fewer than four percent of hourly and salaried workers in the United States are compensated at a rate equal to or less than the federal minimum wage. 

Among those who earn this amount, many receive tips, while others work part-time or in tandem with full-time schoolwork. 

Above all, after a short number of months, a majority of them will earn a promotion or they will accept a better offer from a different firm. 

After all, we are all individuals pursuing our own respective advantages. 

The same is true for businessmen just as it is for employees: we are all looking out for our better interest. 

This means that the employee who accepts an offer at or below a given wage rate, one who voluntarily consents to exchange his labor for a determined rate of pay, has freely entered into an agreement which suggests that he values that position, the rate of pay, the experience and other fringe or unquantified benefits, more than the attending effort and time expended in holding that occupation. 

This also suggests that the employer values the employee's productivity more than the funds he offers in compensation for his labor. 

In this case, it appears abundantly clear that both parties benefit, where there is a clear surplus for both the employer and the employee. 

What's more, the contract is voluntary and, as such, both the employer and the employee can terminate it at any given time. 

In the case of diminished business or underperformance, the employer may decide to terminate this contract. 

Similarly, the employee may determine that he abhors the work, that it no longer compensates him for the expense, or perhaps he has secured a better arrangement elsewhere. 

In any of these cases, both sides are better off. 

If the employer fires the employee, he demonstrates that the employee was no longer worth the expense, and he will likely pursue a better replacement while bearing the full brunt of costs: those of the search, training and transitional underproduction. 

In this case, the outcome will likely motivate the former employee to modify his work ethic, suffer the costs of it, or otherwise find another occupation which satisfies him and more closely aligns with his acumen or personality. 

In the case of the employee voluntarily terminating his own contract, he demonstrates that the arrangement is no longer worth the expense, and whether he has elected to remain unemployed or to accept another offer from a different firm, he has demonstrated preference for this new endeavor. 

In this case, the employer must either sweeten his offer to retain the employee or he will surely lose him. 

In this case, the employer will narrow his margins until a point of agreement, where the surplus remains favorable for both parties. 

Otherwise, they will agreeably terminate the contact, leaving the employer to modify his business or simply endure the costs of his mismanagement, all while searching for a replacement employee. 

Remember, just as applicants compete against each other for the benefits of employment, employees compete against each other for the product of their labor.

In life, there are always tradeoffs, and within a thick or competitive market, there are always plentiful alternatives. 

So long as we voluntarily enter into agreements, no one can possibly be exploited by the specific terms of the given contract. 

As illustrated, once the contract begins to operate to the disadvantage of either party, the contract will cease to remain in effect. 

This is the benefit of a free civilization. 

On the other hand, if a standard minimum wage were instituted between employers and employees, or across all minor league teams in this case, one would witness an automatic eradication of the best available bargaining chip for the individual who plainly wishes to seize the opportunity to prove himself. 

This also serves to artificially buoy the total costs of production, as labor costs serve as one of the contributing factors to that sum.

This unavoidably applies increasing upward pressure to those costs which are shouldered by consumers, or in this case the fans who attend the games, rendering consumer prices far more expensive than they might otherwise be, while systematically resisting the organic market propensity to drive down marginal costs and general prices.

Additionally, such a price floor unwittingly mandates that any employee, or any ballplayer in this case, ought first to become productive at such an enumerated level before he can legally qualify, or requalify, as employable. 

By definition, then, the minimum wage law is a job destroyer. 

This is precisely because wages and salaries are a function of productivity; the employer cannot pay the employee without that employee having demonstrated a level of productivity which justifies his employment at the given rate. 

By the way, employers and employees are not condemned to these titles for life. 

They can, and often do, change over time. 

This is potentially the gravest error committed most ubiquitously within the domain of statistics: surveyors and statisticians fail to characterize their conclusions as mathematical averages illustrative of neither flesh-and-blood individuals nor their mobility within the market and across different categories or groups.

And though the documented history of the minimum wage supports the nefariousness outlined here, the business of government will continue to render those statisticians as employable as ever at the expense of the opportunities and workers they neither know nor care to represent. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Goldmoney: Real Money Purposed for the Future

The institution of money entered the minds of sophisticated traders several millennia ago, when instead of bartering with limited numbers of people within the cumbersome double coincidence of wants, large-scale economies developed from the reach and transparency of commodity money which was scarce, durable, fungible, transportable, divisible, recognizable, and usable in and of itself. 

While we may appear to have transcended those primitive times and those so-called barbarous relics, the truth is that we have merely mutilated the concept of money by clandestinely replacing it with its more manipulable and abstract representative, the proverbial coat check without the coat. 

This is but the device of a large-scale social experiment run in real time, and we are its unwitting and unconsenting subjects who’ve largely never heard of the Federal Reserve’s dual mandate, much less its missions of “maximum employment” and 2-percent annual inflation.

Yet there is hope after all.

Finally, after deca…

The Kaepernick Craze: Exposing the Nation's Fools One Conversation at a Time

The Kaeparnick craze and other viral movements haven't merely pressured people into becoming simpler caricatures of their prior selves, but they have manifestly exposed people for how foolish and uninformed they've been all along. 



In his final year in the NFL, Kaepernick ranked 17th in passer rating and 34th the year before that. 

He played through an entire season in only two of his six years in the league, and his best full-season performance ranks far outside of the NFL's top-250 single-season passing performances in the league's history. 

For reference, the oft-criticized Tony Romo posted a career passer rating of 97.1, as compared to Kaepernick's 88.9. 

Romo's passer rating dipped below 90 for only one season of the eleven seasons he played, whereas Kaepernick failed to eclipse the 90 mark on three of his six seasons, a full 50 percent of his time in the NFL. 

In fact, Kaepernick accomplished this feat only once if we are to discard those other two seasons in …

Bitcoin: Are You Feeling Lucky?

The popular cryptocurrency, bitcoin, has tumbled greater than 50 percent since its all-time high set just a month ago near $20,000. 

Since then, it has traded as low as $9,000 before rebounding modestly back over the $10,000 mark. 
The short story of bitcoin (XBT) is powerfully illustrated by its graduation from its initial use case as an easy, inexpensive medium of exchange to an erratic and highly speculative risk asset which scarcely resembles anything more. 
And despite the chance that it regains steam, it is steeped equivalently in bubble territory at $9k as it is at $20k or even $100 or $100k. 
Plainly, it is a bubble at nearly any price. 
The only difference is the anchoring effect which seduces the investor into interpreting the drop as a buying opportunity. 
So while the fundamentals and the use case haven't dramatically changed since the decline, the greedy investor assumes that the price has dropped because of reasons unrelated to its future viability. 
This is wishful thinkin…