Monthly Archives: October 2011

The Minimum Wage

Funny how I go super in-depth about subjective valuation when I’m mainly going to focus on the monetary aspects of it (as people generally do when they think about wealth) in this post, but there was a point to be made. I’ll repeat the basic argument over again and tie it with the minimum wage¬† now.

Suppose there are two people, David with an apple and Helen with an orange. If the two decide to exchange their respective fruits, both will benefit. David will decide to exchange only if he subjectively values the orange over the apple; likewise, Helen will decide to exchange only if she subjectively values the apple over the orange. Through heterogeneous subjective valuation and peaceful cooperation, an exchange is mutually beneficial: Helen and David are both wealthier as a result.

Therefore, any law created by government that stops this exchange from occurring necessarily makes the two poorer: they will be less wealthy than they would have been had the exchange took place. Likewise, a worker deciding to work for a wage for an entrepreneur is also making a mutually beneficial exchange. A worker will choose to work only if he values the utility of the wage over the disutility of the work. The entrepreneur will choose to hire only if he values the utility of the worker’s work over the disutility of paying the wage.

As said before, any law that stops a mutually beneficial exchange from taking place necessarily makes the two actors less wealthy. This is why the minimum wage should be viewed not as a floor holding wages up but rather as a bar needed to be jumped over. Suppose the minimum wage is $7.00. If Mark is a worker who only produces $6.00, he cannot find a job. Any entrepreneur that hires must either incur losses of $1.00 per hour or choose not to hire Mark. In essence, an entrepreneur must be willing to donate to charity. Because an exchange has not taken place, both Mark and the entrepreneur are less wealthy. In addition, the consumer is less wealthy because he cannot benefit from Mark’s work.

To say that the minimum wage is a floor pushing up wages and then asking for a lower minimum wage for teens and the mentally challenged is completely hypocritical. This acknowledges that the minimum wage is a bar to be jumped over. This logic implies that the teen generally cannot produce as much as the original minimum wage. If he was to be hired for less than he produced, the hirer would undeniably be giving to charity and incurring losses.

As an extra example of the common sense regarding the minimum wage and the associated unemployment would be an extreme minimum wage. For example, consider a minimum wage of $100.00. Under such conditions, there would be an extremely large section of the population unemployed because of their inability to contribute $100.00 an hour. A smaller minimum wage would simply unemploy to a smaller extent.

Ethical/practical counter-arguments:

1) Some critics would respond to this by saying that no person should have to work for less than 7 dollars an hour (similar to the argument made about the situation of the desperate man paying 400 dollars for a glass of water). “It is simply impossible to live with such wages.” However, those people should note that in the situation I am describing, either the person who can only “produce” $6.00 works for a wage of 6.00 or less or does not work at all. Essentially, if there is no minimum wage, then this person can earn $6.00/hr, but if there is a minimum wage he will be unemployed and earn $0.00/hr. So I would ask those who made such an argument: Is it harder to live off of $6.00/hr or $0.00/hr? The minimum wage basically does not allow humans to make choices they normally would make. The plain fact that if you eliminated the minimum wage, and an unemployed person chose to work for $6.00/hr rather than being unemployed proves that they value their situation under the $6.00/hr over the situation they previously had. So why not let them make such a choice?

2) Another line of argument would follow: well, we can just put those individuals unemployed under the minimum wage on welfare. Although I am not a proponent of welfare, I won’t argue against it here because it is irrelevant for this discussion. Even if we think welfare is good, it is not an argument for the minimum wage. This is because we could eliminate the minimum wage and still give out welfare. Instead of saying (for example), that everyone unemployed because of a $x minimum wage receives a certain amount of welfare, we could say that people earning under $x dollars receives that same amount of welfare (or perhaps less than that if we want to simply make it so that their total income (wages + welfare) equals the $x of the earlier minimum wage).

3) Others might argue: wouldn’t the extra employment of individuals caused by the elimination of the minimum wage cause a decrease in wages for everybody? I would half-agree and half-disagree (this answer would only be able to found empirically but wouldn’t be completely provable just because of all the other variables that could be taken account for). Additional competition of workers would obviously decrease wages, but by eliminating the minimum wage, it would decrease a regulation that hinders small businesses, and would increase competition of new businesses as well. In a completely free market, wages tend towards marginal revenue product (MRP; that amount which the workers contribute) because firms that pay less than the MRP are earning profits, and this profit incentivizes new businesses. Regulations such as the minimum wage hinder business competition by making it tougher to start a new business, and therefore hinder this process as well. In addition, it should be noted that new opportunities to hire people with the elimination of an $x minimum wage does not necessarily mean that the already employed have to receive lower wages. The fact that both the business owner and the new employee have to benefit from such exchanges proves that, because the business owner would only hire someone for, let’s say, $3.00/hr if that person actually contributed at least $3.00/hr. This exchange has no effect on other exchanges with workers that the employer is already making.

Sorry if it was long! I’ll probably make shorter posts from now on.

tl;dr : Minimum wage of $x dollars causes unemployment because those contributing less than $x dollars cannot be employed unless the hirer is giving to charity.

Praxeology and Subjective Valuation

Praxeology is the study of human action. Ludwig von Mises, in his magnum opus, Human Action, delved into praxeology with the claim that “all humans act,” and that all human action is purposeful behavior, by using means to obtain ends (sharply differentiating it from reflex or observed movements of inorganic matter). Mises later expanded praxeology into the study of economics by logically elaborating from these principles.

For example, Mises proved that when two actors, let’s say, Mark and Kevin, decide to exchange goods with each other, they both benefit. For example, if Mark has an apple, and Kevin has an orange, Mark will only exchange his apple for Kevin’s orange if he subjectively values the orange over the apple; likewise, Kevin will only exchange his orange for Mark’s apple if he subjectively values the apple over the orange. Through peaceful cooperation and exchange, both benefit from the trade; both are wealthier than they were before the trade.

This is scientifically unverifiable yet logically indisputable. How would a scientist prove that Mark subjectively values the orange over the apple? No full-proof method can possibly exist. As for logic, some may attempt to come up with examples that disprove the logic. I will mention a few of these arguments below.

1) A person may not actually value one good over the other in an exchange. Perhaps Charles is a billionaire with an extra house and decides to give it to a homeless man for a dollar. Obviously, Charles doesn’t value the dollar over the house; he is simply attempting to help another human being while being altruistic (not completely altruistic apparently because he still wants a dollar).

This argument does not defy the logic of subjective valuation. Monetarily, Charles may not value the dollar over the house, but he does value the dollar over the house for the utility it gives him in making another person happy. Charles would not make the exchange unless he valued what he was receiving over what he was giving. In this case, he is receiving more than just a dollar, he is receiving satisfaction emotionally.

2) A person may be desperate and pay 400 dollars for a glass of water.

This argument obviously also does not defy subjective valuation. In his situation, the person does value the water over the 400 dollars; otherwise, he would not exchange it. Some might argue that no man should have to pay 400 dollars for a glass of water, but this is not an argument against the praxeology, but rather an ethical argument.

3) Perhaps in the first situation described (with Mark’s apple and Kevin’s orange), Mark may have heard of praxeology and subjective valuation. He believes he does not value the orange over the apple; nevertheless, he makes the exchange simply to disprove the logic of subjective valuation.

Here, again, this would not defy subjective valuation. The reasoning behind this is that Mark still subjectively values the orange over the apple; otherwise, he would not have made the exchange. His reasons for subjectively valuing the orange over the apple may not be normal reasons, for example, that he liked the taste of the orange better than the taste of the apple, but rather that he subjectively values the orange over the apple because of the utility the orange gives him in disproving the praxeology. Nevertheless, this brings us to a new point. Mark has made a mistake. He valued the orange over the apple for the utility it gave him in disproving the logic, but he has not disproved the logic. He has simply made an error of judgment instead, and the law holds.

Mark may realize at some later point that he was incorrect in his judgment of the situation. Perhaps, Kevin explains it to him 5 minutes later. Now, if Kevin consents, Mark may trade the orange for the apple back, and this would prove that he now values the apple over the orange, for subjective valuations may change over time.

I have delved into what some may think is common sense reasoning in order to apply this to economic situations. One of these situations is the minimum wage, which I will go into next week.


Hey guys, I’m a young anarcho-capitalist and I’ve created this blog to share my philosophical, political, and economic views about the world. And perhaps anything else that strikes me as interesting. For those that don’t know, anarcho-capitalism is a philosophy advocating the abolition of the State while retaining private property rights and the natural law. Society without the State does not equate to a society without law; rather it equates to a society in which government is privatized. People are free to do as they wish and have complete liberty unless they directly conflict with the liberty of others. Feel free to comment or follow me if you find anything of interest.