|
Well "decent wage" does seem to be a bit of an arbitrary term, and it begs the question of who exactly will and can determine for us exactly what a "decent wage" is. What great all-knowing soothsayer has the ability to determine exactly what is optimal for everyone? And how does this relate to the actual desires of the people? What if they conflict? What if your definition of "decent wage" isn't enough for Jack? Or what if it's generous to a fault? How does one determine a uniform optimum given the vast diversity in human desires?
Furthermore, one must take dynamics into account, I.E. there is no single static number that can sustainably function as a perpetual policy. A "decent wage" today may be a "crappy wage" or a "rich man's wage" tomorrow, or as compared between the conditions of different geographical areas. Given that economies are dynamic, I don't see how any attempt to impose a singular standard is going to be sustainable. This is a problem with all attempts at central planning and the imposition of uniform standards. They become obsolete and illogical over time.
Okay, so let's suppose we determine a uniform "decent wage" for everyone and impose it as a standard. Effectively, this is an attempt at establishing a static condition in a dynamic system. What do you think will happen as conditions change over time? Well, this "decent wage" will soon lead to either a shortage or a surplus - as all attempts at price fixing do. If it is too high in light of changing conditions, it will lead to a shortage. If it is too low in light of changing conditions, it will lead to a surplus. If one does not leave the process alone to adjust itself, one merely creates calculational chaos and prolongs the problem (and creates new ones). All hail the cycle of interventionism!
|