Watching Walter Block and Boyd Blundell debate unions and the minimum wage Blundell made the most absurd argument:
He accepted Block’s reasoning that demonstrated that the minimum wage causes unemployment, but then proceeded to argue that removing the minimum wage is a bad thing. Block made the point that removing the minimum wage means more money to the least skilled (and therefore poorest), this was countered by Blundell saying that this is bad because it means the poorest have to work when they could be doing other things.
Just a minute. He expects me to work hard, spending lots of time at work therefore denying me the opportunity to do other more fun things, so that my money can be given to people to allow them to not work? I think I see a problem with the incentives here.
I don’t mind providing some support for those who are struggling to make ends meet. I’d prefer that to be transparent and ideally voluntary and to be going towards supporting those few who cannot work and those who are working but still find it difficult to earn money.
