Why Governments Should Not Protect Employment Rights via Low Minimum Wages

The Fallacy of Government-Protected Employment Rights

In recent years, the debate over minimum wages has become increasingly contentious, often painted as a battleground for worker rights versus corporate responsibility. A common argument in support of maintaining low minimum wages is that such measures allow employers to maintain affordable labor while protecting employees' rights to an affordable living (or lack thereof). However, this perspective is not only flawed but potentially harmful. This article explores why the concept of a government protecting employment rights through low minimum wages is misguided and argues for a return to free market principles.

The Myth of an Absolute Right to Affordable Living

The idea of a "right to affordable living" is often conflated with constitutional protections, but it does not have a legal basis in the United States Constitution. This absence is crucial because rights, by their very nature, are inherent and not granted by the government. Essentially, if a right to affordable living truly existed, it would not need to be imposed through government mandates or policies.

The Flawed Logic of Minimum Wages

The introduction of a minimum wage, no matter how low, is often criticized for its unintended consequences. It blindly attempts to address economic disparities without fully considering the actual needs of the workforce. A minimum wage, whether set at $15 per hour or any other figure, is often seen as a solution that fails to address the root causes of economic inequality. The reality is that minimum wage laws, including those intended to be low, often have a single effect: they make some portion of the workforce unemployable. Employers, aiming to avoid operating at a loss, have no incentive to hire workers who cannot contribute to their bottom line.

The Historical Context of Minimum Wages

The historical context of minimum wages reveals that they were initially implemented to maintain employment for certain groups, such as white workers, rather than to improve the wages of working-class families. As historian Thomas DiLorenzo noted, 'The minimum wage was not a progressive measure but a racist one, designed to keep blacks from competing for white-collar jobs.' This historical context underscores the fact that minimum wages have often been used to restrict job opportunities for specific groups rather than to support all workers.

The Importance of Free Market Principles

The simplest and most effective solution to the complexities of labor markets is the free market. By allowing labor and capital to freely interact according to supply and demand, the market naturally balances wages and employment based on economic forces. Government interventions, such as minimum wages, can disrupt this balance, leading to unintended consequences.

The free market approach ensures that both employers and employees have the freedom to negotiate and contract terms under which they see fit. This freedom allows for flexibility and adaptability, which can better address the nuanced needs of both parties. Without government intervention, the market can evolve to better reflect the needs of all participants, from the most vulnerable to the most established.

Conclusion

It is time to recognize that the concept of a government-protected right to affordable living is both unenforceable and counterproductive. Instead, we should advocate for policies that support a free market economy where both employers and employees are free to negotiate terms based on mutual benefit. By returning to principles of individual freedom and the power of the market, we can address the real issues facing workers and employers alike, fostering a more just and equitable economic system.