The Quest for a Living Wage: Unions vs. The Minimum Wage
The change from an Agrarian economy to an Industrial economy has changed the density that the average person lives in. In highly dense areas, we are more dependent on others irregardless of whether they provide services. The better our neighbors do the better off we all are. Our neighbors may work low skilled jobs to where a free market in labor is unable to provide them with the necessary resources to not be drains on our wealth. With more urbanization, even before industrialism took off, people saw the need to reward those working with the ability to not be parasites on their neighbors wealth. They first called for unions. They then called for a 'Living Wage'. A 'Living Wage' is impeded by capitalists, who only see the short term costs and race to the bottom trying to be free riders. One of the major proponents of a 'Living Wage' is labor unions, even though it is against their best interest.
The best this country has been able to do is make a clumsy attempt at a Living Wage named the Minimum Wage. This paper first explores the history of the Minimum Wage - it's implementation, advocacy, and impediments. It also makes it clear that a major driving force behind Minimum Wage increases is organized labor. It then points out the shortcomings of Minimum Wage and concludes with an argument for organizing low wage workers instead of pushing for Minimum Wage.
posted by John Blickenstaff at 9:02 PM
2 Comments:
John, I have not read your whole paper so this reply addresses only what you quoted in the blog. Specifically, that a 'living wage' is not in the best interest of unions. I don't accept that.
Unions recognize that unionized companies are less competitive than non-unionized companies because of the costs the unions impose upon those companies.
A 'living wage' is a way of raising the costs of non-unionized companies so that unionized companies can compete.
BTW, this is Malachi from the Wildcat board. I'll try and read the rest of your paper when I get the chance.
8:36 AM, April 28, 2008
Thank you very much for your comment. That was an angle I missed in the paper. Hopefully, by the time you have read it, I will have thought it through.
My first instinct is to say that the free ridership for non-union members is more powerful a force than the 'way to make unions competitive'.
9:24 AM, April 28, 2008
Post a Comment
<< Home