Posted by
Andrews on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 2:46:03 PM
We constantly hear about how government ended child labor, or how government brought higher wages for workers, or ended "exploitative hours" of 12 or 16 hours a day. Now first of all, many of these myths are just that, myths. Child labor largely ended because it was not economically feasible to employ children in industrialized nations. Hours went down because worker productivity improved, and so on. However, let us forget that for a moment, and ask ourselves, if the government had ended these practices, or if it were to end the "exploitation" of foreign labor working for "pennies a day", would it be a good thing?
Why do people allow their children to work in industry? Why would someone work a 16 hour week? Why would someone take a job for $0.10 an hour? Because it is the best job available, that's why. If your choice is starvation or a $0.10 an hour job, you take the $0.10 an hour job. You only send your children to work because the other option is your children starving. Though many who decry "exploitation" forget it, people take jobs voluntarily, and they take these "exploitative" jobs because they believe they are the best options available. To prevent them from taking it by government decree is to give them no options, in other words to condemn them to starvation.
But some will argue that is not true. All employers would exploit the workers but for the government. Employers would all pay $0.10 an hour except for the government. So, by forcing them to pay higher wages, the government secures better wages for everyone.
That is simply not true. Employers pay what the market demands. They simply cannot get away with paying workers too little, say $0.10 an hour, as another employer would see the possibility of paying $0.15 an hour and still making a profit while stealing the best employees. And so on, up the scale, until the wages reach what an employee is truly worth. So, if employers in a country or int eh past were paying $0.,10 and hour that is because workers' efforts were worth $0.10 an hour.
But some will argue that employers will collude to keep wages low. However, that makes no sense. Employers are so greedy they will exploit workers to the utmost, but they are not greedy enough to betray one another to make more money by paying their workers more? Nor will one of them worry that another might betray their cartel, and thus pay more in a preventative bid to avoid another trying to bid away his workers?
Sorry, but if employers are greedy and committed to nothing but making money, it, ironically, means that they will pay close to market wages, as any other option leaves the possibility of someone else swooping in, stealing the best employees, and making better profits.
Which brings me back to my point. At any point in history, or in any nation, excepting where there is actual slavery, people take jobs because they are the best available, and employer pay what they do because those are the terms on which the job turns a profit. So if employees are working 12 hours a day, if children are working, or if people are making pennies an hour, that is because the market will not support better wages or conditions.
And to make those conditions illegal is to simply prevent anyone form working. It does not benefit workers, it impoverishes them.
POSTSCRIPT
I wrote on this before in my posts "
Exploiting Workers?", "
Beware Populist Deception", "
Cheap Lighters, Overseas Dumping and Monopolies", "
Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, and More Jobs", "
Capital Investment", and "
Clarifiying My Argument". However, as I have seen this myth mentioned again and again recently, I felt the need to address it once more.