The simple economic fact that labor is also subject to the laws of supply and demand is something I believe you have overlooked. more specifically, labor is subject to these laws on a very segmented basis. That segmentation is dependent on skill base, initiative, ingenuity and a multitude of other factors.
If a minimum wage is necessary to create a blance between supply and demand in the labor pool as a whole, why would anyone make more than minimun wage in this country where a national minimum wage exists? We have a minimum wage as a social push to help the lower class workers in the land. However, when increases to this wage are implemented, there is always some degree of change in the hiring and scheduling practices of some companies. If changes to the scheduling and hiring are impossible, changes occur to the pricing of the services or products.
The point overall is that a Global minimum wage may not even translate into an increase in living standards for the exploited. Chances are good that many of them will lose hours or even their jobs. Either directly by employers cutting labor or by increased prices decreasing sales. Take your pick.
While I would whole heartedly agree with you that a Global Minimum Wage would not be a good idea, it is obvious that more needs to be said. At the very least provide a reason before you call someone's idea stupid.
As far as the reasons, I think it would be impossible to create such a wage without unbalancing the economic footing of those economies producing the demand on a global scale. The reason the economy we live in in the First World exists is due in large part to the "exploitation" of the third world labor. To change the price of such labor in one instant would sharply plunge the First World into a downward plunge of inflation and quite probably into a deep depression. The moment that starts to happen, the slow improvement of Third World economies halts and even has a high chance of reverting into a worser state.
The question one needs to ask is that of what causes the imbalance in global economies, societies and technological infrastructure. Is it exploitation by the First World? Yes. Is that the sole reason? No. Will the changes occur to balance out the global footing? I believe so, but not at the speed people would like.
The US was not always a major economic player. It took a long time for that to develop. It also took two other main components -- A represenative government in which the general populous was able to invoke change to their country not provided by a free market economy and economic resources. The US had the first element fairly early on and had a wide abundance of the second. Third World countries have limited of both if they even have one.
This can't be fixed overnight, but the influence of a globalized economy does provide a catalyst of sorts. While at a painfully slow speed, even third world countries are benefitting in many cases from globalization. Economies, governments and "progress" go hand in hand. There can be no real gain in one without gains in the others. Coordination of all three is a slow and painful process.
Isolationism of any kind is counterproductive to economic development. This bill seems to enact such a wall from the rest of the world in the distribution of new technology. Most such walls are creted in the form of tariffs, but this would have a similar effect.
Economists often attribute growth in economies to effeciencies. Efficiency is created through intoduction of better tools (of which computer hardware and software are a prime example). by clamping down on newly created software and hardware technologies, economic growth is hurt.
Secondly, the parties within this country who stand to benefit from this bill is not limited to the entertainment industry. Large players in the hardware and software industries will be able to absorb a hit from such litigation, but smaller competitors (often with better products) will not have as easy a time doing so. Competition is also a prime creator of new technologies and thereby economic efficiencies.
Slashdot Mirror
The simple economic fact that labor is also subject to the laws of supply and demand is something I believe you have overlooked. more specifically, labor is subject to these laws on a very segmented basis. That segmentation is dependent on skill base, initiative, ingenuity and a multitude of other factors.
If a minimum wage is necessary to create a blance between supply and demand in the labor pool as a whole, why would anyone make more than minimun wage in this country where a national minimum wage exists? We have a minimum wage as a social push to help the lower class workers in the land. However, when increases to this wage are implemented, there is always some degree of change in the hiring and scheduling practices of some companies. If changes to the scheduling and hiring are impossible, changes occur to the pricing of the services or products.
The point overall is that a Global minimum wage may not even translate into an increase in living standards for the exploited. Chances are good that many of them will lose hours or even their jobs. Either directly by employers cutting labor or by increased prices decreasing sales. Take your pick.
Sure they'd get exploited. By the other source of their exploitation -- the governments, organized crime, etc. present in their country.
While I would whole heartedly agree with you that a Global Minimum Wage would not be a good idea, it is obvious that more needs to be said. At the very least provide a reason before you call someone's idea stupid.
As far as the reasons, I think it would be impossible to create such a wage without unbalancing the economic footing of those economies producing the demand on a global scale. The reason the economy we live in in the First World exists is due in large part to the "exploitation" of the third world labor. To change the price of such labor in one instant would sharply plunge the First World into a downward plunge of inflation and quite probably into a deep depression. The moment that starts to happen, the slow improvement of Third World economies halts and even has a high chance of reverting into a worser state.
The question one needs to ask is that of what causes the imbalance in global economies, societies and technological infrastructure. Is it exploitation by the First World? Yes. Is that the sole reason? No. Will the changes occur to balance out the global footing? I believe so, but not at the speed people would like.
The US was not always a major economic player. It took a long time for that to develop. It also took two other main components -- A represenative government in which the general populous was able to invoke change to their country not provided by a free market economy and economic resources. The US had the first element fairly early on and had a wide abundance of the second. Third World countries have limited of both if they even have one.
This can't be fixed overnight, but the influence of a globalized economy does provide a catalyst of sorts. While at a painfully slow speed, even third world countries are benefitting in many cases from globalization. Economies, governments and "progress" go hand in hand. There can be no real gain in one without gains in the others. Coordination of all three is a slow and painful process.
Isolationism of any kind is counterproductive to economic development. This bill seems to enact such a wall from the rest of the world in the distribution of new technology. Most such walls are creted in the form of tariffs, but this would have a similar effect. Economists often attribute growth in economies to effeciencies. Efficiency is created through intoduction of better tools (of which computer hardware and software are a prime example). by clamping down on newly created software and hardware technologies, economic growth is hurt. Secondly, the parties within this country who stand to benefit from this bill is not limited to the entertainment industry. Large players in the hardware and software industries will be able to absorb a hit from such litigation, but smaller competitors (often with better products) will not have as easy a time doing so. Competition is also a prime creator of new technologies and thereby economic efficiencies.