I believe you'll find that adequately addressed in my linked blog post, however, given that:
• Labor has a natural disadvantage to employers in wage negotiations (see Smith), exacerbated often by additional illegal disadvantages (see current wage price cap collusion by Silicon Valley firms),
• That below-subsistence wages are not sustainable, that is, they don't cover the full costs of providing labor, and
• That a business which cannot cover the costs of its inputs is, ipso facto, uneconomic, then
• Failing to require businesses meet the full costs of their inputs, and offshifting that cost onto labor, corresponds to a net subsidy of an uneconomic business by labor.
This presumes that the minimum wage is set to cover the subsistence rate, which is to say, the rate at which a laborer can support both themselves and their immediate family: nonworking spouse if required for maintenance of household and raising of children, and of children, their upkeep, and education.
I read your post, but the only part of it that I can find which remotely addresses my question is: "A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him."
So if that's the relevant piece, you are asserting that it's welfare for an employer to pay a man less than a few dollars/day (i.e., subsistence) in wages? That still doesn't explain what you mean by "welfare".
yummyfajitas is (explicitly) interpreting "cost of production of labor" to be "subsistence wages" (and has asked for alternatives if that's not what is meant). Minimum wage is quite a bit more than subsistence wages in most places, and quite a bit less than what's typically referred to as a "living wage" - particularly if we're including raising children.
Federal minimum wage in the US is at best a rough proxy for living wage, as living expenses vary greatly by region (Jane Jacobs has some interesting things to say about this in The Rise & Fall of Great American Cities and Cities and the Wealth of Nations). In reality you'd want to calculate a living wage specific to a given area or region.
The official Federal poverty rate is based largely on the cost of food (housing was a much smaller component of expenses when it was first calculated, and for political reasons, the formula hasn't been adjusted mostly because it would make whatever administration did so look bad). It's presently $11,490/year for an individual ($5.75/hr), or $23,550 for a family of four ($11.78/hr). Good luck living on that in New York or San Francisco. In recognition of this, many aid programs are available at some multiple (e.g., 4x) of the poverty level.
In which case, I'd argue that the present Federal minimum wage of $7.75/hr is well below subsistence for a family throughout the US, and is below that of individual subsistence in many larger cities. Since providing for continued labor means supporting at least one child, if not two plus at least a partial share of a spouse's support, it's low by several times.
Comments
I believe you'll find that adequately addressed in my linked blog post, however, given that:
• Labor has a natural disadvantage to employers in wage negotiations (see Smith), exacerbated often by additional illegal disadvantages (see current wage price cap collusion by Silicon Valley firms),
• That below-subsistence wages are not sustainable, that is, they don't cover the full costs of providing labor, and
• That a business which cannot cover the costs of its inputs is, ipso facto, uneconomic, then
• Failing to require businesses meet the full costs of their inputs, and offshifting that cost onto labor, corresponds to a net subsidy of an uneconomic business by labor.
This presumes that the minimum wage is set to cover the subsistence rate, which is to say, the rate at which a laborer can support both themselves and their immediate family: nonworking spouse if required for maintenance of household and raising of children, and of children, their upkeep, and education.
I read your post, but the only part of it that I can find which remotely addresses my question is: "A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him."
So if that's the relevant piece, you are asserting that it's welfare for an employer to pay a man less than a few dollars/day (i.e., subsistence) in wages? That still doesn't explain what you mean by "welfare".
What part of "obtaining an input at less than the cost of production due to uncorrected market imbalances" don't you understand?
yummyfajitas is (explicitly) interpreting "cost of production of labor" to be "subsistence wages" (and has asked for alternatives if that's not what is meant). Minimum wage is quite a bit more than subsistence wages in most places, and quite a bit less than what's typically referred to as a "living wage" - particularly if we're including raising children.
Federal minimum wage in the US is at best a rough proxy for living wage, as living expenses vary greatly by region (Jane Jacobs has some interesting things to say about this in The Rise & Fall of Great American Cities and Cities and the Wealth of Nations). In reality you'd want to calculate a living wage specific to a given area or region.
The official Federal poverty rate is based largely on the cost of food (housing was a much smaller component of expenses when it was first calculated, and for political reasons, the formula hasn't been adjusted mostly because it would make whatever administration did so look bad). It's presently $11,490/year for an individual ($5.75/hr), or $23,550 for a family of four ($11.78/hr). Good luck living on that in New York or San Francisco. In recognition of this, many aid programs are available at some multiple (e.g., 4x) of the poverty level.
http://www.obamacarefacts.com/federal-poverty-level.php
In which case, I'd argue that the present Federal minimum wage of $7.75/hr is well below subsistence for a family throughout the US, and is below that of individual subsistence in many larger cities. Since providing for continued labor means supporting at least one child, if not two plus at least a partial share of a spouse's support, it's low by several times.