At 03:55 PM 3/30/00 -0500, you wrote:
> >>> Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 03/30/00 03:06PM >>>
>quoth Krugman, in yesterday's NY TIMES: >For example, how do you feel about
>the "living wage" movement, which in effect wants a large increase
>in the minimum wage? That would certainly increase the incomes of the
>lowest-paid workers; but it would also surely have at least some adverse
>effect on the number of jobs available. <
>
>____________
>
>CB: This is essentially the same argument that Karl Marx critiques in
>_Value, Price and Profit_ , just in case Krugman thinks we forgot. Wages
>can go up without lessening jobs , if profits go down.
To defend Krugman for a second, if profits go down, won't that discourage
capitalist accumulation, while encouraging business to look for greener
pastures in poor countries that offer low wages, docile workforces, zero
environmental restrictions?
The standard arguments in favor of "living wages" is that paying them
either won't hurt profits or will actually help them. (At a minimum, pay
living wages will lower profits by just a little, which shouldn't hurt
accumulation since profits are already pretty high by historical
standards.) These arguments are also used to defend trade unionism.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
