I am Evgeniy from Ukraine, reading and learning Libertarian views.
Hope It right place to ask this question.
Question: As far as I got it, Free Marekt proponents explaine negative effects from Socialistic Minimum Wages Law.
Keeping in mind Free Market explanation of the problem, does this allow wages to freely be set buy the market on the very low levels?
And if so what solution is proposed in this scenario for individuals whose ability to get simple food can become problematic itself?
It is obviouse that there is possibile scenario that a worker faced the perpspective of starvation feels “not very good” in front of any employer who tells him that he had to earn less because of market situation? As I can understand indeed this problem was the base for creation of trade unions in first place?
Can anybody advice any good reading on this topic? In other words what should free market proponent say to those from socialist side to explaine how worker will be protected in this scenario?
The vast majority of workers in first world countries are not in any danger of starvation but some people will have to depend on charity to make ends meet.
In really poor countries the main issue is that the poor do not have property rights. They just need to have the right to own land and grow their own food (at the very least) so capitalism can take place.
Is it possible for people to starve from death in a free market?
Yes. New strains of diseases can wipe out entire crops, drive up the price of food, and make it impossible for people to feed themselves. In such a case, there is nothing government can do but exacerbate the problem. If they tax the rich in order to save some of the poor, the government will simply slow the development of alternative foods and further reduce wages as investment would be forced to take a fall, thereby forcing more people on government welfare rolls.
It is also possible that some who are born with pre-existing conditions would not be able to work in a free market, since they would have no physical or mental capabilities that lend themselves to work. Such people would have to rely on charity work to survive.
In a free market, anyone can find work. So wages are not suppressed by a limited job pool. Because every labourer can become a firm and compete with firms, and because there are no (unnatural) barriers to what they do, how they do it, or how long they do it, they can provide as much for themselves as nature can provide.
Low wages are characteristic of all of the competition being on the labour side, and little on the side of firms.
Unions try to price fix wages higher, but they can only do so by excluding other workers or using coercion against the firm they work for.
Ideally, we would have no use for unions, as everyone competed freely.
If someone’s current situation is unable to keep them alive, they will change it. They will either get a new job, find a cheaper place to live, eat differently, have a roommate, etc. People will always find a way to survive. Government intervention is not required.
1st, it must be understood that production and free trade is the only means by which the standard of living can be improved. Per-head quota of capital is what determines the standard of living. Capital accumulation will raise the standard of living of everybody. No government action can improve on this process but can only make things much worse (as this is exactly what it does).
2nd, the problem you suggest is apparent only in the society that rejects the free market process, thus, it’s capital accumulation rate is not higher then it’s population growth rate. Note that the governments in such places are hopeless in improving the standard of living. How can they if they don’t produce anything, but live off the productive output of others?
3rd, No man, in a free economy, will take a job that does not improve on his current condition. In the rare case of unable individuals who cannot posses any value for the market, there will have to be a reliance on family, friends, and charity.
Assuming that people did die from starvation in a free market, so what? What’s the alternative? Is that a justification for the state? We have already seen what happened in the USSR, Commie China, and all other socialist and communist countries. Furthermore, we have seen what happens in non-free market USA.
A straw manargument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[1] To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position
Like I said, theres no straw men in an sardonic observation. Only in an argument.
Well, yes it does. I think you really need to understand how the market system works. Money goes to the people who provide goods and services valued by others, this may be something as simple as people paying somebody to buy a cake. On the other hand, it may well be that people will donate money to others because people dying of starvation around them causes them disutility. But here’s the important thing, in a free market it only takes one or two people who value the lives of those around them to put an end to this sort of starvation. In a democracy it takes a democratic majority, or an appointed official to make the decision. In the case of the former, you can clearly see why the free market is superior. In the case of the latter public choice theory points out that public officials are self interested actors too, and that they’ll respond to incentives just like other market actors.
