We often hear that lack of opportunity for legal employment is a "root cause" of crime. That is likely less of a factor than many would have us believe, but it would be equally fallacious to believe it is not a factor at all.
We need to be concerned, then, that the ladder of opportunity always be there and that those who want to climb it be able to do so. Unfortunately, people pretending to have the best interests of low-wage workers at heart are busily sawing off the bottom rungs.
We need to be concerned, then, that the ladder of opportunity always be there and that those who want to climb it be able to do so. Unfortunately, people pretending to have the best interests of low-wage workers at heart are busily sawing off the bottom rungs.
The long-standing Catch-22 of employment is that you can't get a job without experience, and you can't get experience without a job. Entry-level jobs fill a vital place in the economy, providing that start that so many people need.
Entry-level jobs are jobs for people whose skills are not yet worth much per hour. So what happens when government forbids hiring people for what their work is worth? Government cannot repeal the law of supply and demand, and the unintended consequences of attempts to do so invariably cause harm.
In economics, there are elastic and inelastic demands. If you have to have something no matter what the cost, and there is no substitute, then you will pay whatever you have to pay, if you have it. But true inelastic demands are rare. In almost all cases, there are alternatives.
If government mandates a wage beyond the value of the work, the employer will have a powerful incentive to find an alternative. For many jobs, the work can be moved outside the jurisdiction. If a job really has to be done locally, the economics of automating it versus hiring a person to do it are shifted. Lydia DePillis has a story in the WaPo titled "Minimum-wage offensive could speed arrival of robot-powered restaurants."
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions," goes the old saying. Doubling the minimum wage will saw that vital first rung off the employment ladder, with dire consequences for the entry-level job seekers and ultimately for society.
Entry-level jobs are jobs for people whose skills are not yet worth much per hour. So what happens when government forbids hiring people for what their work is worth? Government cannot repeal the law of supply and demand, and the unintended consequences of attempts to do so invariably cause harm.
In economics, there are elastic and inelastic demands. If you have to have something no matter what the cost, and there is no substitute, then you will pay whatever you have to pay, if you have it. But true inelastic demands are rare. In almost all cases, there are alternatives.
If government mandates a wage beyond the value of the work, the employer will have a powerful incentive to find an alternative. For many jobs, the work can be moved outside the jurisdiction. If a job really has to be done locally, the economics of automating it versus hiring a person to do it are shifted. Lydia DePillis has a story in the WaPo titled "Minimum-wage offensive could speed arrival of robot-powered restaurants."
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions," goes the old saying. Doubling the minimum wage will saw that vital first rung off the employment ladder, with dire consequences for the entry-level job seekers and ultimately for society.
Leave a comment