© 2013 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. The legislative mandate is government should get between the buyer and seller and tell both how the seller should be compensated. More so, they tell the buyer that the needs of the seller are paramount even if the transaction is not equally beneficial for the buyer.But the government says the problem with the free exercise of trade is that the person with productivity has no leverage. Not so, people with money understand the only way they get more money is by trading money for productivity which fuels commercial enterprises. Productivity is the lifeblood of enterprise. Employers are only as good as their workers.
The sticking point is when people have no productivity. What are they trading? Further, it is nonsense to think any worker is the same as any other worker. This is a “One size fits all” notion from government. If the people in the government were to be in business they would find out quickly that each potential worker has differing levels of productivity to sell to the employer for money.
But the government dictates to the buyers of productivity that all workers have the same baseline of productivity whether they actually have any productivity. We employers are told that a fresh-face novice in business with no productive skills must be compensated for productive skills they do not have. Our only other option is to not hire that person. Most of us do not hired people who do not have any productive skills.
Why would I trade money with someone who does not have something to trade? Worse, I am forced into charity work with the lifeblood of my business, my workforce. As those who know me can attest, I am quite charitable, but I cannot afford to be with my workforce. My workforce is all that is between me and being out of business. The government stops me from making a fair trade for the actual productivity of potential employees. Read more
Posts
1 comments:
Setting minimums will have unintended consequences. Invariably those negatively affected, persons who need a job and can't get hired, are told by business owners that the costs are unaffordable and so they find a way to get the job done with fewer people. That's when the unemployed complain about laws that limit opportunities. It's an endless cycle. Ironically, the people who influence the passage of stupid legislation could care less who gets hurt.
Post a Comment