Joan -
...It was my observation that in Australia they have a "minimum wage" policy that is a living wage. I am not talking about make work jobs. For example the people on the low end of the wage scale can afford to pay the rent, buy groceries and get to work. I know this may not provide the best competitive labor economics for some of the industries that hire these people like the restaurant and hotel industries, but it is one way to run the railroad....
No matter what it's called, a price control on labor that is above the market clearing wage rate will result in a lower demand for labor. This may evidence itself in high unemployment, especially on the low skill end, or reduced fringe benefits, or in general unemployment as capital must be substituted for low productivity labor. Also, on the margin, many businesses will cease to exist or come into being in the first place. Anyone who honestly believes in any kind of minimum wage must come up with an argument why a $10/hr minimum wage is different in kind from a $1000/hr minimum wage, for example.
...I do not believe firearms should be in the hands of people that plan on using them to kill people.
A person who plans on killing people would presumably be guilty of pre-meditated murder, if he were to carry out his plan. Is he likely to be deterred by the requirement to break an additional gun ownership law?
Why in the world would you insist that his potential victims must be disarmed? Why must a robber be secure in the knowledge that he can break and enter without fear for his life?
In the US, something like two million robberies, rapes, etc., are prevented each year by the defensive use of privately owned firearms. In the vast majority of these cases, the mere existence of the firearm is sufficient, and it is not even fired. Equally as important is the number of crimes that are completely deterred in the first place, even and especially for homes that contain no guns at all, even though they may legally do so.
Regards, Don |
